home
RSS
My Faith: Who does God listen to?
October 15th, 2011
06:00 AM ET

My Faith: Who does God listen to?

Editor's note: Missionary and conference speaker Jason Frenn is the author of “The Seven Prayers God Always Answers.”

By Jason Frenn, Special to CNN

(CNN) - I was 8 when I first walked into the huge church in Woodland Hills, California. Cautiously moving down the center aisle with my mouth half-open, I gazed at the candles, elaborate statues and stained-glass images and silently asked: “Would God listen if I prayed?”

At the time, I didn’t know much about spiritual things, and unfortunately, I didn’t have anyone in my life who was in a position to enlighten me. Deep down inside, I wondered if God truly cared when I talked to him.

That basic question led me to a simple yet all-important discovery. It’s not how important or pious we are, or even how perfect our beliefs may be. God listens to all of us when we pray. What matters most to him is the sincerity of our heart, and that is precisely what generates a response.

But as I Christian I wonder, "What about people from other religions and walks of life? Does God listen when they pray?"

At this time in our nation’s history, we’ve become polarized over religious issues, but God hasn’t.

He isn’t confined by our opinions or theological positions. Instead, his ways transcend culture and theology. Even our lack of faith and moral shortcomings don’t prevent him from listening to our prayers.

If they did, many great people in history, including King David, an adulterer, and Moses, a murderer, never would have attained an audience with the creator. Regardless of one’s religion, culture or level of morality, God offers all of us something wonderful that might seem surprising to many.

If you’re a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or even an atheist, you don’t need the faith to move mountains or even be a saint to get God’s ear.

Throughout the Bible, there is only one prerequisite to God listening to our petitions. If your heart is sincere when you pray, God will listen and offer an answer to your prayers. This is true for everyone, everywhere, every time.

In Matthew 7:7, Christ spoke to a small crowd and made this promise about prayer. “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” God listens to every genuine prayer directed to him. It may not be the answer you’re looking for; nonetheless, you can count on a response to your petition.

A few months ago, I received an e-mail from a man in Africa. He mentioned that he was facing a difficult challenge in his personal life and needed to overcome some significant barriers.

He was scanning channels and came across a television program showing me speaking at a large church. He watched as I said, “God asks you the question, ‘What do you want me to do for you?' ” Suddenly, he paused. What he wrote next in his e-mail struck me. “I am not a Christian,” he said. “I am a Muslim.”

He said, “You encouraged me to pray. So I did, because I am presently going through a difficult challenge in my life that I desperately need to overcome. I realize that I am not alone and that I should pray and ask God Almighty for help. God is answering my prayers.”

He ended his letter by stating, “Prayer and more prayer is what I'll be doing to overcome this barrier!”

I want to leave you with this final thought. If you find yourself dealing with family issues, financial challenges, personal health problems or any other area where you need help, there are prayers God always says yes to regardless of your background or personal faith. You will never know what incredible breakthrough awaits you until you start praying.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jason Frenn.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity

soundoff (702 Responses)
  1. Andy Breeden

    A much better question would be, "Does God even exist?"

    October 15, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • Michael I

      The answer lies in the questions who could design a body to hunger for food, have the urge to pee, the need to defecate, a heart that beats without being connected to electricity or any other visible outside source, Blood that runs through the veins and no company can manufacture, ears that hear, nose that breed, a tongue that speaks, and a brain that functions without any outside aid. Hope you figure that out.

      October 15, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why do you think any such development depends on some invisible being?

      October 15, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • thegodlessgeneration

      It's unfortunate that Mark I is so afraid of the phrase, "I don't know." It's remarkable how many people in this world are simply unwilling to 'not' know something, so they need God to make them feel comfortable. Just because we don't know exactly where we came from isn't a bad thing. Think of things we didn't know 100 years ago that we do today – then think how many people used "God did it" as an answer to explain it back then before science proved otherwise.

      Stop being so scared of the "I don't knows" of life because by depending on a God, you're not really living at all. You're using a security blanket so make you feel safe because you can't answer certain questions.

      October 15, 2011 at 10:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Thank you, godless. That's what I think of when I think of "arrogance"-that anyone of us "knows" what is beyond knowing. The crazies like Adelina, Heaven Sent, herbert, and others seem to think that by insisting they KNOW FOR SURE this, that, or some other do nothing to persuade anyone who doubts or wonders or is uncertain.

      By their insistence that the absolute truth is within their purview, they imply that all who question, wonder, or doubt are somehow inferior or "less" than they because we do not share their unwavering, unquestioning, thoughtless faith are simply weaker, less loving, inferior, or damned. By doing so, they shut off any discussion worth having and lose any chance of changing anyone else's thinking.

      I hope they don't work in PR....

      October 15, 2011 at 11:47 pm |
  2. herbert juarez

    plz click report abuse on reality posts.i am a witless narc troll.god bless.

    October 15, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
  3. herbert juarez

    unwitty troll post.god bless.

    October 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
  4. herbert juarez

    3rd rate troll post.god bless.

    October 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
  5. David Johnson

    God does not listen to anyone.

    Jesus speaking:

    "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." –Matthew 21:22 (NIV)

    "I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." –Matthew 17:20 (NIV)

    "Ask and it will be given to you.... For everyone who asks receives." –Luke 11:9-10 (NIV)

    "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." –Matthew 18:19 (NIV)

    James 5:15 – And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.

    Let's be honest. Don't be afraid to use critical thinking. Jesus said the above, about prayer. Is it true? Can you post back to me and claim what Jesus said is true?

    Why has there never been a doc_umented case of an amputated limb being restored? Do you think an amputee never prayed or had faith?

    Double blind experiments, have all shown that prayer has no effect on illness.

    Because people have believed the promises of the bible, they have withheld medical care for their children. They prayed instead. Evidently, god was not moved by their faith. Their children died. Modern medicine could have saved them. OOoopsie!

    Why aren't Jesus' words true? Can you think of any possibilities? If Jesus' words aren't true about prayer, then how can we depend on anything else Jesus said? Maybe if we could "test" the afterlife claims, they would be no more real than the claims about prayer.

    A fundie once told me, that god always answers prayers in one of three ways:
    1) God says, "yes". You get what you asked for immediately.
    2) God says, "to wait". You will get what you asked for at some future date.
    3) God says, "no". You will not get what you asked for.

    Hmmm.... But I can get the same success from the carton of milk I have sitting on the breakfast table.

    1) If I pray to my magic carton, some things will come true immediately, just by chance and coincidence.
    2) Some things will come true at some future date, for the same reasons.
    3) If I don't get what I want, then my magic carton said, "no".

    I think there is a problem, when there is no difference between praying to a god and praying to a milk carton.

    Having a prayer answered, appears to require only 3 things: belief, faith and to be totally sure, you need others to pray with you.

    Hmm...

    Remember the Gulf oil spill?
    Remember how a ton of people prayed for god to stop the gushing?
    I was spellbound! I watched the real time video of the oil spill. I expected to see it stop. It did not. Human technology eventually capped the well.

    Remember when Rick Perry rallied his state to pray for rain? He issued a proclamation that for 72 hours, the citizens of Texas would all pray for rain. I thought, surely god would hear their prayers and open the windows of Heaven!
    The "days of prayer" ended Sunday, April 24, 2011. Texas is still experiencing exceptional drought.

    Studies have shown prayer does not work. Any miracles or answered prayers are the result of random chance, coincidence and selective observation. Believers tend to remember the perceived positive outcome of prayers and forget the failed.

    Christians MUST contest this. They must rent their clothes and Shout: "Do not put the lord your god to the test!" LOL!

    God, either does not care or does not exist. Personally, I'm checking the second box. LOL.

    Cheers!

    October 15, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Exactly, David, and anyone who doubts a word that you are saying here is simply immune to empirical evidence and/or rational thought. Nothing is easier than believing what you want to believe. It is not the virtue of devout faith that allows people to believe what they want to believe. It is simple self-interested desire.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      Many folks desire the 'natural' and not the 'supernatural'. Death happens and people should rejoice in the fact that said dead one is going to heaven but alas they cry and do weep.

      Did not Christ Jesus say outrightly that "This world is NOT His Kingdom"? Did He not also say that, "The Kingdom of God is inside you"? Go figure it out yourself in that our bodies are but buildings and temples and they are in need of habitation.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Richard Kaiser

      Jesus said a lot of stuff. He even said He would be back in the 1st century. What I worry about (not really), is that if you can't believe Jesus about anything testable, why would I believe any of the stuff He promises that I can't test? Like an afterlife.?

      Cheers!

      October 15, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Jesus never promised a first century return ,you are mistaken .God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • Free

      herbert juarez
      “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” – Matthew 24:34 🙂

      October 15, 2011 at 8:23 pm |
    • Scott - other

      “Christians MUST contest this. They must rent their clothes and Shout: "Do not put the lord your god to the test!"” THIS IS NOT TRUE. In 1 kings 18 Elijah puts god to the test, god willingly accepts the challenge and he comes across with the goods. They put the other god to the test and he fails. So according to the bible not only is it ok to put gods to the test. It’s ok to slaughter the prophets of gods that fail the test.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      free
      He was referencing the final generation,not that particular generation. Check out who he was talking to ,where and why.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How do you know what "he" was referencing? Did he tell you?

      If there's a god, you wouldn't be here, herbie.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • Blithering Idiot

      No merciful god would inflict herbert juarez on innocent people.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      tom tom the answer to all the questions are in the context and supporting texts.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 9:03 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      David Johnson, wrote on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 8:02 pm @Richard Kaiser, stating, "Jesus said a lot of stuff. He even said He would be back in the 1st century. What I worry about (not really), is that if you can't believe Jesus about anything testable, why would I believe any of the stuff He promises that I can't test? Like an afterlife.? Cheers!"

      Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

      Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

      1Cr 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building.

      Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands

      1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

      Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

      These scriptures are what I cling to and daily do review them. I am nothing but a piece of clay molded by the God who made me from the 1st seed of my father and the 1st cell of my mother's womb. I am nothing without having Faith in GOD, His 1st Son and the God who built my being and until death will live out their Lives within my body.

      May you David keep in your rationale the witts of your kindness and judge not lest you be judged.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @herbert juarez

      Sorry Herbie. You better just stick to ad hominems. You are an idiot. No doubt about it. God bless!

      Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

      Hmm... Jesus may not have known the day or the hour, but He did predict a 1st Century return. How can the Messiah and God incarnate be wrong? Can you think of a reason?

      A number of New Testament passages indicate that Christ was supposed to return before his generation had died. This would have been sometime in the first century AD.

      First, there is the testimony of Jesus himself, who explicitly stated that some of his disciples would not die until Jesus inst_ituted the Kingdom, and that his generation would not pass away until all his prophecies of the end of the world had been fulfilled:

      Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

      Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

      Jesus' speech in 24 and 25 was given, when He was alone with His disciples.

      Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

      Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
      In this discourse, Jesus makes a number of assertions about the fate of his disciples. One of the signs of the end would be the persecution of his disciples:

      Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
      While tradition records that the disciples were persecuted and martyred, this was not followed by the return of Christ, as he promised. Would they die for a lie? Apparently... Or at least for something they were told and believed. LOL.

      The Apostle Paul, too, seemed to think that Christ would return for his generation:

      I Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

      Note that Paul twice uses the phrase '...we which are alive and remain...'.
      This seems to preclude the theory that Paul was speaking of some far future generation. Paul made a similar assertion in First Corinthians:

      I Corinthians 15:51,52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

      Note that Paul said that '...we shall not all sleep...'. In other words, he expected that at least some of his generation would not see death.

      Again, there is nothing in the text to indicate that Paul was speaking about some far future generation.

      Paul reiterated his belief in a soon return of Christ in the Book of Romans:

      Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

      The other New Testament writers had similar thoughts about the iminence of Christ's return:

      James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

      I John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

      I Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

      The Apocalyptic Book of Revelations repeatedly has Christ saying that he would return soon:

      Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly....

      By no stretch of the imagination can 2,000 years be considered 'quickly' LOL

      And, to say That a thousand years is like a day to the lord, is dumb. A thousand years is not like a day to humans. An almighty god would certainly understand what "quickly" would mean to humans.

      Jesus was wrong. Jesus has been really busy being really dead, for the last 2,000 years.

      So Herbie, I know you will want to "spin" this. You must! I will help you by giving you a laundry list of theological gymnastics that believers use:

      Believer's Rule of Thumb: If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is a translation or copyist's error; means something other than what it actually says; Is a mystery of god or not discernable by humans; or is just plain magic.
      I'm sure one will work! LOL

      Cheers!

      October 15, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Richard Kaiser

      It is not my intention to harm you or take anything from you.

      Cheers!

      October 15, 2011 at 10:40 pm |
    • Free

      Thanks David!
      I couldn't have responded to herbert better myself! 🙂

      October 15, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
    • Romans5:8

      2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
      2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
      2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
      2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
      2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
      2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
      2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
      2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
      2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
      2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
      2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
      2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
      2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
      2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
      2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
      2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

      October 16, 2011 at 2:26 am |
    • herbert juarez

      As usual; david johnson is way off base with his opinions and his conclusions.Context and content,both absent from the verses uses to "prove" he has found error where there is none.David clearly does not understand Biblical thought and how the Old Testament scriptures formed the foundation for the New.Most early Christians understood, although even some of them did not and were under the same misinterpretation of what was actually said.A good deal of what Jesus and later Paul told the disciples and early Church was long established by the prophets to be in the distant future. These prophecies were explained and expanded upon by the Messiah and early Church Fathers.The problem with a david johnson is that no matter how often his lies are exposed ,he returns to the lie and reposts as if it were never disputed and proven wrong.Thus making any conversation with david johnson dealing with Truth and reason an exercise in futility.God bless

      October 16, 2011 at 7:19 am |
    • Celery Stalks At Midnight

      The problem with herbert juarez is that he is a clueless, juvenile dolt. Nothing that he says means anything. Disregard it... and him.

      October 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @herbert juarez

      You babbled: "As usual; david johnson is way off base with his opinions and his conclusions.Context and content,both absent from the verses uses to "prove" he has found error where there is none.David clearly does not understand Biblical thought and how the Old Testament scriptures formed the foundation for the New.Most early Christians understood, although even some of them did not and were under the same misinterpretation of what was actually said.A good deal of what Jesus and later Paul told the disciples and early Church was long established by the prophets to be in the distant future. These prophecies were explained and expanded upon by the Messiah and early Church Fathers.The problem with a david johnson is that no matter how often his lies are exposed ,he returns to the lie and reposts as if it were never disputed and proven wrong.Thus making any conversation with david johnson dealing with Truth and reason an exercise in futility.God bless"

      That's funny. Everyone associated with Jesus believed He would return in that generation. Where or who do you think gave them that idea? Hint: Jesus. LOL Lunatic; Liar; or Lord? Well, I guess we can rule out "Lord".

      According to historian Charles Freeman, Early Christians expected Jesus to return within a generation of his death. When the second coming did not occur, the early Christian communities were thrown into turmoil." – Wikipedia: Freeman, Charles. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and Fall of Reason, p. 133. Vintage. 2002.

      Me thinks it would not have thrown the early Christian communities into turmoil, if just "some" of the people believed Jesus' literal words.

      And this:

      Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. —1 John 2:18

      I guess even John did not have your insight. But, they say hindsight is always 20/20. When there is an OOoopsie, believers just spin the verse. Suddenly, the literal meaning is not correct. You just pick a "fix", and on you go!

      And then there is this:

      Jesus instructed his disciples to hurry because the time for preaching before his return was relatively short:

      When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matt. 10:23)

      This emphatic statement leaves no room for an enormous delay. It would certainly not have taken 2,000 years to reach the towns of Israel. Moreover, most of those towns had been destroyed by C.E. 70, which would have greatly reduced their burden.

      Hell, a carload of Jehovah Witnesses could have gone to every structure in Israel in a week.

      Well, Herbie... As I said in my original post, "You have to spin it!" Your argument is crap. Most people did NOT understand that Jesus was talking about future generations. Even the elite believed Jesus was coming back in the 1st century. They believed this, because Jesus told them so. Jesus, Himself, didn't believe He was talking about a time 2000 + years and counting.

      Spin it how you like, but it says what it says. It is what it is.

      Cheers!

      October 16, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • faithfulelect

      My wife was dying with 8 months to live due to liver failure. She repented of her alcoholism and returned to the LORD after many of us prayed for days from her death bed. NOW she has almost completely recovered and her doctors call her a walking miracle and a testament to prayer and faith. South west Virginia. God does exit dear friend and whether you believe in him or not, he believes in you. Your unbelief will not save you as you seem to think. Repent and take Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I know I have and this has made all the difference in my life. Bless you all.!

      October 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
  6. Richard Kaiser

    Colin wrote on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm, stating, “Chad – as you have called out a few of my posts in support of your notion that we atheists are "angry" allow me to respond. I am far from angry. I am actually quite an upbeat person. This is pure luck, I accept, and based on my fundamental brain chemistry, rather than any achievement on my part, but I am lucky enough to be a generally happy person. Do not confuse a rejection of the supernatural with emotional baggage. Yes, I do think belief in Bronze Age mythology in the 21st Century is the hight of inanity, but that does not make me want to go out and kill a Christian. It makes me wat to help elevate them above such nonsense.”

    What ‘Colin’ do people like you and me truly know about ‘brain chemistry’? Even those who have PhD’s in neural transmigrations thru electro-bio-chemical substrates know but a sliver of just what truly goes on in the mind. Being an ‘upbeat person’ seems to be playing upon a musical comedy and being a ‘generally happy person’ is attributed to,,,’luck‘?

    A ‘rejection of the supernatural’ cannot be confused with ‘emotional baggage’? Is ‘name-calling’ of Christendom by stating it as being ‘Bronze Age mythology’ good for one’s ego or soul or spirit or psyche? 21st Century Christians is at their ‘height of inanity’? The elevation of nonsense is something to be considered by everyone. To label any religion or religious folks as being utterly nonsense & inanity is archaic and may never come to a full fruition by the atheistic engendered species

    October 15, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If the "elevation of nonsense" is to be avoided, why do you continue to contribute to said elevation?

      October 15, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      Thumbalina,,,

      "The elevation of nonsense is something to be considered by everyone.."

      You are a young lassie and have yet to be assimilated into any fold I take?

      October 15, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Recognizing bronze age mythology as, indeed, bronze age mythology isn't necessarily good for one's ego, but it's an important step in the direction of rationality.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm a "young lassie". Not that I give a crap.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      One thing old tom tom could give is crap cause every post is full or it.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      John Richardson wrote on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm, stating, "@Recognizing bronze age mythology as, indeed, bronze age mythology isn't necessarily good for one's ego, but it's an important step in the direction of rationality."

      Being 'rational' is of goodness but exactly how many people can function under the guises of rational thoughts? What percentage would such be as acceptable levels of rationalized thoughts of people in general? How many alcoholics will quit drinking due the rationale of Godless thoughts? Drug abusers ,, same view?

      October 15, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Goodness, herbie, I thought you said you didn't read my posts. Funny how you're responding to them within seconds.

      I must have really hurt your feelings.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      @ herbert juarez

      Forgive her Herb, I do but once in awahile one needs to shoo the fly away,,,, 😦

      October 15, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Richard, rationality is important, but by no means the only important thing. But in fact MANY former drinkers quit for rational reasons with the aid of medicine and friends and family, but no "divine intervention". I am an example.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:15 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      John Richardson wrote on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 8:15 pm, Stating, "Richard, rationality is important, but by no means the only important thing. But in fact MANY former drinkers quit for rational reasons with the aid of medicine and friends and family, but no "divine intervention". I am an example."

      I am an example of divine intervention from my alcoholism and drug abuse. I've been sober since September 5th, 2,009 and reefer free since April 28th 2,011. Without Faith in GOD and understanding about Gods and gods, I would never have been able to maintain sobriety and freedom from pot. I accept 'your' supposition in beating alcohol's grips. May your interpretation in the venues of rationalism do you well in your Life.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:46 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      John Richardson wrote on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 8:15 pm, Stating, "Richard, rationality is important, but by no means the only important thing. But in fact MANY former drinkers quit for rational reasons with the aid of medicine and friends and family, but no "divine intervention". I am an example."

      I am an example of divine intervention from my alcoholism and drug abuse. I've been sober since September 5th, 2,009 and ree.fer free since April 28th 2,011. Without Faith in GOD and understanding about Gods and gods, I would never have been able to maintain sobriety and freedom from p.ot. I accept 'your' supposition in beating alcohol's grips. May your interpretation in the venues of rationalism do you well in your Life.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
  7. TheRationale

    God doesn't listen because that implies he exists. Until you can show he exists, this is a moot point. If you're going to assume he exists, you might as well assume whatever else you want about him. It doesn't make sense to argue over that though...

    October 15, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
    • Free

      Exactly! You might as well ask if Santa really does keep a list of all the good little boys and girls. Sorry if that sounds harsh to some folks, but the two really are on the same level of credibility.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @TheRationale

      Every believer that posts here, puts the cart before the horse. They all want to start the conversation as though their god's existence is an established fact. They offer no evidence, before leaping on their soap box and explaining the will of their god.

      Cheers!

      October 16, 2011 at 2:21 am |
  8. hippypoet

    would it be funny if we found out that your god was just a worker god for a company of gods that ran the peoples on many planets thru-out space... and then we get a giant fax meant for your god saying canel the experiment (meaning us)...what do you do?

    October 15, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • Free

      Personally, I find Sim Theory rather compelling. "God" might just be some Red Bull hyped-up gamer reclined with his laptop out there, deciding when to trash our program in favor of something even more of a waste of time. 😉

      October 15, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
  9. Avser Bastian

    WALL STREET PROTESTS...NOT ANTI WALL-STREET AT ALL, BUT INSTEAD RACIALLY MOTIVATED AGAINST WHITES

    THEY WERE MURDERING YOU WITH AND INSIDE OF THEIR CORPORATIONS FOR OVER 66 YEARS !!! THEY HAVE CLOSED DOWN ALMOST EVERY SMALL COMPANY IN UNITES STATES OF AMERICA AND NOW, THEY WANT YOU TO GO OUT THERE AND PROTEST FOR THEM AGAINST WALL STREET(corporations = Wall-street) !!!

    FOR ENTIRE 66 YEARS, ON DAY TO DAY BASES, ALL THEY WERE DOING IS CRIME CONTEMPLATING AGAINST US INSIDE OF THEIR BACK OFFICE CUBICLES(on job torture/bullying/mobbing and forceful unemployment to progress humanity as Obama exclaimed over and over) PER EEOC AND NOW, THEY WANT YOU TO RAISE COMMUNIST FLAG UNDER AMERICAN SKY !!! ONE RACE; RAT RACE(Wall street protesters are Obama's army which spread from London per Zionist Washington DC and communist Moscow) !!!

    WHEN YOU PROTEST(it is much more than just than necessarily), RAISE SIGNS HIGH SO WHOLE WORLD CAN SEE DISPLAYED I CITE, "66 YEARS OF GENOCIDE AGAINST WHITES IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE !!!"

    THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO YOU BY WHITE AMERICAN REFUGEE !!!

    http://www.youtube.com/user/BostjanAvsec OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xGfYOAydjw OR http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xleq3o

    October 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • David Johnson

      I am not fond of racists. I assume you are part of the Tea Baggers?

      Curious in Arizona

      October 16, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
  10. Awkward Situations

    ... and then he asked if he could wire 1 million dollars to my bank account because the money has been tied up in his later father's estate. By helping him I can keep 20% of the money, all I have to do is give him all my financial information and offer up a prayer.

    October 15, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  11. Avser Bastian

    WHITES AREN’T WELCOME IN AMERICA ANY LONGER !!! WE DON’T NEED YOU ANYMORE !!! OUT OF AMERICA WITH WHITES NOW !!!

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xGfYOAydjw&w=640&h=360]
    OR
    http://www.youtube.com/user/BostjanAvsec

    OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE RECORDED LIVE IN 2009. Facts about lunatic Obama/Bush's twilight zone administrations(HORROR) or genocide against white population.

    Make sure to play video from beginning. Just in case http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xleq3o

    THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO YOU BY WHITE AMERICAN REFUGEE !!!

    IS IT INDEPENDENCE THAT WE CELEBRATE OR DEPENDENCE (what are your credit card bills or alimony saying about it) !!? HOW IS YOUR DIABETES AND LOST MARRIAGES !!? FORECLOSURES AND JOB SEARCH !!? THAT IS THE QUESTION TO BE OR NOT TO BE !!! IS IT LAND OF THE FREE OR STATE OF TERROR AGAINST OWN WHITE POPULATION !!? IT IS TIME TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT COLOR ARE THE STRIPES ON OUR STAR SPANGLED BANNER !!! TIME TO DETERMINE WHOSE INDEPENDENCE/AMERICA, WE CELEBRATE TODAY(who wants to erase us and denies us the right to exist) !!! IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHOM WE ADDRESS WITH "PRESIDENT" (STOP HUMILIATING YOURSELF) !!!

    911 WAS CREATED FOR PEOPLE TO WAKE UP(deliberately by CIA)....HOWEVER, WAKE UP EITHER WHAT IS TRUTH(sanity) OR WAKE UP TO LIES(insanity = with what your self elected governments have brainwashed you when forcefully jobless/persecuted....therefor­­e, I want you to think about "WAKE UP" when watching next time ALEX JONES alike "alternative" news/media = CIA)

    WHEN YOU WAKE UP, I WANT YOU TO WAKE TO YOURSELF AND NOT TO SOMEONE ELSE'S DREAM (ZIONIST/COMMUNIST/LIBERAL DREAM CATCHERS/THIEFS, WHO PLOTTED 911 TO WAKE YOU AFTERWARDS WITH ECONOMIC OPPRESSION IN A WORLD OF LIES !!!)

    HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TRUTH IS !!? WHATEVER YOU WERE BORN IS WHAT YOU ARE(truth therefore) AND FOR WHATEVER REASONS YOU HAVE CHANGED(distorted yourself) SINCE 9/11 IS WHAT YOU ARE NOT !!!

    FOR PIECE OF MIND(sanity), PLEASE VISIT MY WEBSITES AND REMEMBER, GENOCIDE(health care) BASED ON FORGIVE AND FORGET IS NOT FOR ME !!! DIGNITY, PRIDE, AND HONOR ARE WORTH TO DIE AND KILL FOR !!!

    October 15, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
  12. *frank*

    Tripe article is tripe.

    October 15, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      There are two definitions of tripe:

      1. The first or second stomach of a cow or other ruminant used as food
      2. Nonsense; rubbish

      October 15, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • J.W

      He meant the first one.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
  13. cari

    I am always amused at the amount of non-believers who not only read the BELIEF blog but also take the time to comment on it. Perhaps God is amused as well.

    October 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Know What

      I am always astounded and dismayed at the amount of believers who make that statement, cari, with absolutely no thought given to it - and (this time) without even reading down the page to see it discussed.

      October 15, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
    • Scott - other

      Of course you’re amused. Theists have no respect for anyone else’s BELIEFS and seem to love to condemn anyone with different beliefs to eternal hell.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • Free

      carl
      From the article:
      "If you’re a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or even an atheist, you don’t need the faith to move mountains or even be a saint to get God’s ear."

      So, you see, we were made a part of this, like many of the articles here. So isn't it fair that we be given the right to respond with our own opinions? For example, the author then goes on to say:

      "Throughout the Bible, there is only one prerequisite to God listening to our pet.itions. If your heart is sincere when you pray, God will listen and offer an answer to your prayers. This is true for everyone, everywhere, every time."

      Obviously, if he thinks that atheists still pray regularly, he really doesn't understand the whole "non-believer" concept very well, does he?

      October 15, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
  14. JohnQuest

    It seems odd, the first question about God is not "If God is listening" but "Is there a God". The writer presumes (or more likely was taught by his parents) that there is a God, I hold no assumptions, I don't think the smarter one do either. I don't get the comments about Atheist, it sounds like the author doesn't know that Atheist are non believers That's the same as saying that "although you don't believe in Santa, he will still bring you a present on Christmas. This in the most ridiculous articles I have read in a long time.

    October 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • ***

      ...the plural of atheist is atheists.

      Great post otherwise.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Scott - other

      Of course god listens to prayers. After a long day of godding he kicks back with a big pipe of grass, listens to the prayers on his answering machine and laughs himself silly.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:45 pm |
  15. AGuest9

    It's strange that there is a "culture & science" section here. Most non-catholic christians I've met know very little science.

    October 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  16. hippypoet

    heres a good one... i was speaking with a man yesterday who is a very devoted to god man, but yet has no knowledge of anything from before joshua...jesus... anyway, that made me very confused becaus the man who this man lets call him bob, bob was devoted to jesus without any real knowledge of what and where jesus took his history and culture from – bob and others like him only concern themselves with what he either said or what was said he said/meant. So all the teachings of Joshua that focused on say... Solomon's temple and his rein, or perhaps the story of the exodus out of egypt or bablyon, or abraham and his trials and his sons... all these things seem to have no impact on the modern so called christian yet were paramount in his day and were common knowledge. they were things that made joshua who he was..... very interesting things to think about!

    October 15, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • J.W

      It seems to me that it is more commonly the other way around. People want to follow what the OT says and not what Jesus said.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • hippypoet

      well even with the other side of the argue is still the same agruement... why do people who worship Abrahams god, either thru jesus or not , do so without knowing the history or origins of there faith. what are they basing there beliefs in god on if not the whole story of the same god, every story that stems from Abraham is still about the god of the three major faiths... the only two base there foundations on a teacher while the jewish faith and culture value history and timelines with family lineage...sry i can't spell.... so if you take out the messiahs or founder prophets what your left with is the pure OT minus the arguement of which son Abraham tried to kill, so this is the true foundation to each of there faiths and so one of the followers should know what they base there lives on! its principle!

      October 15, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • J.W

      I guess the only answer I would have would be laziness. People think they will just go to church and listen and that they never have to do anything on their own.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • Free

      J.W
      More than that, some want to follow what Paul, or even some pastor said, and not Jesus. Considering how hawkish some believers are out there you'd swear they'd never even heard of the Beat.itudes before because they sure don't seem to see being "Meek", "Merciful", or a "Peacemaker" as even remotely Christian qualities.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
  17. Are we there yet?

    The only praying in church that works is the one with an "e". Preachers prey on the old and sick.

    October 15, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Is that your opinion or do you have proofs?God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm certain anyone would be happy to supply "proofs" as soon as you do, herbie.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      tom tom
      Do not really need the help or opinion of a known hypocrite, thanks.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      tom tom
      Do not really need the help or the opinion of a known hypocrite, thanks anyway but no thanks.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Apparently, you need something if you don't know how to post, herbie.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Hard to post when you're laughing so hard at someone.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I doubt you laugh at much, herbie. You seem like a sad person.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      The joy of the Lord is my strength.I'll be laughing long after you all are gone.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So you really are only 15? I thought as much.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:24 pm |
    • Scott - other

      @herbie: how about Howard Camping?

      October 15, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @scott:Any relation to backwoods camping?God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I doubt herbie has found the joy of s3x with a person of the opposite gender. If there is such a thing where herbie is concerned.

      October 15, 2011 at 10:43 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @tom tom
      In the game of life it is always good that someone covers left field.You stand out there tom tom and if a ball ever comes your way toss it back to the real players .If you need help look to center field o.k.?God bless

      October 16, 2011 at 6:59 am |
  18. question1

    I've always found a slew of "atheist" posts on any religious/spiritual forum I've visited. At first, I found it odd. I'm not an engineer so I never visit engineering websites & frankly, I don't really care about engineering per se. No disrespect intended, it simply doesn't interest me. So the atheists who spend much of their time posting on belief forums perplexed me, but I think I understand a little better these days. God bless us, everyone:)

    October 15, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • non sense

      whats your point... how do you understand more so now compared to before?

      October 15, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • Know What

      question1,

      If engineers who had not a shred of evidence for their proclamations but were nonetheless trying to control society (and your daily life) by passing laws and public policies... not to mention condemning you to eternal torture or oblivion, I'm just betting that you would visit their web sites...

      October 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
    • Chad

      Atheists are a strange bunch.. Atheists are almost universally angry, every once in a while you'll find one that will engage in a dialog with out resorting to calling you names, but it's rare.

      My theory is that deep down they are afraid they could be wrong, that's why they are so fearful (angry). Christianity threatens them.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Chad
      Actually deep down they"know" they are wrong,but not to worry there are not enough true atheists around to hold a tiddly wink tournament.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Actually, Chad, that's what most conversations with Christians are like, after they are finished quoting books and numbers.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • Colin

      Chad, I can only spek for myself, but I like to go where the Christians and other ttheists are and engage in debate in (a perhaps fruitless) effort to help them escape their retarding superst.itions.

      There is no Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or Christian sky-god watching over us, willing to swoop in at the eleventh hour and bail us out if we look like messing things up on this planet. We’re on our own. We live in a narrow soap bubble of a global biosphere, about seven miles wide, below which there is molten rock and above which there is the cold vacuum of outer space. If we slowly bake ourselves or poison ourselves here, or launch devastating wars, we have nowhere else to go.

      Throwing off the retarding effects of our religious supersti.tions and accepting our limitations as individuals and responsibilities as a species, is a major step toward confronting our problems like rational adults rather than blanket-cuddling children.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
    • Chad

      @AGuest9 "Actually, Chad, that's what most conversations with Christians are like, ..."

      LOL

      a couple examples of sarcasm, insult, name calling just from this one page here:
      "Now if only they could realize just how much the Bible deserves to be in the same book section as all the other fantasy/fiction"
      "Have you ever noticed how quickly religious nonsense crumbles in a heap if we stop giving it the free pass from common sense "
      "World's Largest Fantasy Role Playing Game"
      "The only praying in church that works is the one with an "e". Preachers prey on the old and sick."
      "It's strange that there is a "culture & science" section here. Most non-catholic christians I've met know very little science."

      October 15, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Chad

      and, just in the time it took me to write that response, some calls us "blanket-cuddling children." with "their retarding superst.itions."

      I rest my case. Most atheists are extremely angry. What is it about Christianity that you find so threatening?

      October 15, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
    • Know What

      Chad,

      When reason and logic fail to convince...

      “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” - Thomas Jefferson

      October 15, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Colin

      Chad – as you have called out a few of my posts in support of your notion that we atheists are "angry" allow me to respond. I am far from angry. I am actually quite an upbeat person. This is pure luck, I accept, and based on my fundamental brain chemistry, rather than any achievement on my part, but I am lucky enough to be a generally happy person. Do not confuse a rejection of the supernatural with emotional baggage. Yes, I do think belief in Bronze Age mythology in the 21st Century is the hight of inanity, but that does not make me want to go out and kill a Christian. It makes me wat to help elevate them above such nonsense.

      October 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @Know: when reason and logic fail, call them names? How does that reflect on you?

      @Colin, I didnt say anything about emotional baggage or atheists wanting to kill someone did I? Perhaps you read another post..

      just scroll up and down, one word describes the vast majority of posts by atheists: anger

      October 15, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • Know What

      Chad,

      It sounds like you are angry at atheists...?

      October 15, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • Chad

      I dont call atheists names, what makes you think I"m angry at them?

      I'm just trying to help you folks see the truth. Wether you do or dont doesnt threaten me.

      October 15, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      Colin wrote on Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm, "Throwing off the retarding effects of our religious supersti.tions and accepting our limitations as individuals and responsibilities as a species, is a major step toward confronting our problems like rational adults rather than blanket-cuddling children."

      How do 'religious supersti.tions' become 'retarding effects'?

      'Rational' adults in many religious orders do not act as childish 'blanket-cuddling children'. They see things differently than the common atheists who only parrot away their days mocking the religiously devoted and mimicking in their like-minded folds' voy.eurisms.

      Surely, many Christians I know do accept their 'limitations' and personal 'responsibilities' and yes they are as a singled out 'sub-species' based on religious morals and scruples. I await your response to my question,,,,,,

      October 15, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Atheists have every right to read and respond to articles about religious belief. I don't know if you noticed this, but many articles on this blog involve people who trying to influence the laws of this country with their beliefs. Why should we be silent, since silence implies approval? I do not approve of people making laws based on supersti-tion and mythology.

      I have many friends of many religions and we get along because of the simplest thing: Respect. On these boards, christians have questioned my intelligence and my integrity. Some have consigned me to hell, while others, like question1, complain about my right to free speech. Some, like Chad, accuse me of being angry. I am only angry at those people who are trying to impose their beliefs upon others, and I will not be silenced just because you don't want to hear opposing views.

      October 15, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      tally, this is an outstanding post. Brava!

      October 15, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • Chad

      "consigned me to hell"
      =>not sure why you care if Christians feel you are going to be separated from God for all eternity if you dont accept Jesus Christ as your savior. Really, why do you care? The Dalai Lama thinks I'm going to come back in a lower form when I'm reincarnated.. Do I really care what he thinks? Do I think he's consigning me to a canine existence? What he thinks doesnt even register with me because I have zero doubt in my mind regarding his belief system. There is no part of me that thinks he might be right.
      You have a different reaction though. You feel you're being "consigned to hell", and that bothers you. Why?

      "Some, like Chad, accuse me of being angry. I am only angry at those people who are trying to impose their beliefs upon others, and I will not be silenced "
      => First: you just acknowledged you are angry, so you should say instead that "Chad recognized that I'm angry" 🙂
      => Second: are you saying that I dont have a right to lobby the government for what I believe is right? Isnt that the democratic system?
      =>Third: you feel you need to be disrespectful or else you risk being silenced? You cant assemble a data based argument free from insult?

      October 15, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
    • J.W

      I think you are lovely tallulah, and I would say I respect most people on here. But it does seem like on this blog there is a lil bit of everything on both sides. The atheists on here do question the intelligence and the sanity of believers a lot. Some say that children being raised in a Christian household is damaging them for life. Of course these things can be true, but these things can be true of anybody really.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:14 pm |
    • Politiks

      Chad-Your observation is right on, I think the inablity to support an argument is concealed by vile comments as can be seen of some these handles time and again.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      The greatest threat to the self ordained atheist is that God is.God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • David Johnson

      I have been an atheist since I was about 14. I never had the desire to post on religious blogs until George W. became president, largely because of the Religious Right.

      Christian Right Agenda = Christian Theocracy

      Theocracy = A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

      Christian Right = Predominately Evangelicals

      The Texas history books are rewriting history to give the conservative slant. The objective of this effort, is to create a Christian Nation, a theocracy with Jesus as Head of State.
      The recent article about the letter to the Jews, from George Washington, must sting like a son-of-a-gun. We are a secular nation. Thank god!

      A huge campaign is underway, to convince the American people, the founding fathers never intended a separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson's role as a founding father is played down. In some cases Jefferson is smudged.

      Expect an attack on the 1st and 14th Amendments. The founding fathers will weep.
      Most of the Tea Party are for a Christian Theocracy. The Tea Party is in bed with the Christian Right. A vote for any Tea Party candidate, is a vote for Christian Right domination.

      The Republicans are the puppets of the Christian Right and Rich White Men. If you aren't rich or if you aren't white, then this is not your party. Remember Rand Paul's wish to have limited government that should not force private businesses to abide by civil rights law? Isn't that a tad racist or is it just me? Can you say: "You want me to sit where on the bus?"

      You will see an amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman. Gay rights will dwindle and die.

      Roe Vs. Wade will be reversed. Women will once again be forced to seek back alley remedies. Men may be forced to buy condoms on the black market. You will procreate! Or you will be abstinent! It is not up to you!

      Stem cell research will stagnate. The hopes of damaged and sick people will be dashed. Little Billy better get used to that wheelchair.

      All scientific research will be scrutinized by the Christian Right. "Whether or not a theory is in agreement with the Evangelical's interpretation of god's will", will be the new metric. Get use to hearing "God Did It". No one will dare question otherwise.
      Science classes will be much easier. Much less to remember or think about. 90% of the answers will be "D" – God did it. 30% correct will be passing. 50% will be Valedictorian.
      Makes it pretty easy to get their "sheep skin". Baaaaa!

      Education doesn't matter! Jesus is coming soon. When Perry told of his poor academic performance, The Republicans (Tea Party?) applauded.

      Let's glorify ignorance and stupidity!

      You say you've developed a vaccine that will prevent women from getting cervical cancer? No, Mr. Scientist. You will pour it down the drain! And you will make drugs that prevent STDs no more! So sayeth the Lord...According to the Religious Nuts.

      "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital $ex. Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV" – Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council

      I would much rather my daughter was lying there dying of cancer, rather than having taken a shot that might have given her out of control urges.

      There was a recent article on the Religious blog about how Evangelical young'uns are not waiting.

      Little Betty is not praying so often, because she is so devout. She is praying for her Aunt Flow. Amen!

      P_ornography will be illegal. The Religious Right will decide what is p_ornographic , as well as what is art. You will watch television programs approved by the Evangelicals. Lots of reruns of "Growing Pains", starring that Evangelical darling Kirk Cameron. Thank you Jesus!

      Will museums exhibiting transitional fossils and other evidence of evolution, be deemed po_rnographic and closed? Their exhibits burned?

      Creationism will be taught in public school, most likely alongside evolution rather than instead of, but no guarantees. Creationism/ Intelligent Design will consist of 10 chapters. Evolution will be mentioned on the book jacket cover.

      Vouchers will enable parents to send their child to religious schools. Funds to public schools will dwindle. Quality education will be out of reach for the masses. The finite amount of money, will be spread too thin. Destroying the public school system is the purpose of the voucher system.

      If each faith attends their own school, interacts only with children who believe as they do, Might this not interfere with the melting pot, we often brag about? Won't this increase prejudices? The Catholics once told their children that Jews have horns. *sigh*

      Segregation, is not beneficial. We need to learn to get along, and work together. Toddlers are really good at playing well with others.

      Little Johnny will believe in talking snakes and Zombie Messiahs. He will spend his free time watching the heavens, waiting for Jesus to return. The rest of the world is spending their time learning real science and math. Good luck Johnny. Can you say: "Would you like fries with that?" And you Betty! Lots of jobs overseas. With your qualifications, there is a pole with your name on it, waiting for you.

      State-sanctioned Prayer will be in our schools. The Christian Right think they know better than the Founding Fathers and want to tamper with the Bill of Rights. They want to amend the U.S. Const_itution, so that the Government would legally sponsor and take over the activity of prayer. Only the one true god, the Christian god, will be given homage. The god(s), of all other faiths, will be subservient to the Christian god. Muslim parents will need to make this clear to their children. Will the Catholics and the Mormons be Christian enough? What about the Jehovah Witnesses? The Evangelicals / Jesus will determine this.
      The non-Christians will be allowed to put their heads down on their desks, during the morning worship. They can contemplate their damnation, for not accepting Jesus.

      $ex education will consist of abstinence only. Studies have shown it is a worthless concept. But, it will please the religious fanatics. Why did little Betty have her purity ring reshaped into a tongue stud?

      The war against unions, commenced during the Reagan administration, will continue. Labor will be humbled. They will accept the wages they are offered and should be grateful to get it. The Mexicans won't come here for jobs, anymore. The rate of pay won't justify the effort.

      Say goodbye to enti_tlements. Medicare will be changed to a voucher system. When Grandma is out of vouchers, she is out of luck. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme! We will reduce Grandmas' pension a % for each, predetermined, increment of life.

      Our elderly will die earlier than they would like. But, they have the promise of an afterlife to comfort them. Unless of course, they haven't accepted Jesus. Then, they will burn in a place created by an all loving and all just god, for all eternity.
      Best for them to concentrate on the pie in the sky. Works better than opium for a lot of people.

      Go toward the light, Grandma... Grandpa is waiting for you.
      We love you Grandma. But, the Republicans have taken away Medicare and cut your Social Security. Go to sleep, now.

      The government will turn over Medicade and the rest of the programs for the p_oor, to the Christian Right. They will decide who will receive help and who will not. No longer will the criteria for receiving help, simply be income. Every dime given, will have "strings". The poor will be beholden to the Evangelicals.

      The Christian Right has embraced Paul as the moral lawgiver. Paul's First Ep_istle of Paul to the Thessalonians, is often quoted by the Republicans. You never hear them quote Jesus' advice to the rich. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Jesus will understand.

      The Republicans applaud the executions, of human beings. The more the merrier. They will be a burden to the state, no more! If it turns out some were actually innocent, god will set it right... Providing they have accepted Christ.

      Perhaps trials aren't necessary. Send the accused directly to god's justice! We are a Christian nation!! Are we not the hand of god?

      The accused are of another faith, you say? Give them a chance to pray the Sinners Prayer, and send them to judgment.

      The Republicans screamed, "YES", when asked if an uninsured man should be allowed to die.
      If you read the Good Samaritan parable told by Jesus, you might come away with the idea that Jesus wouldn't agree.
      But, I bet Jesus will change His mind once the Evangelicals rule in His name.

      Could be, Jesus will feel compelled to rewrite the entire bible, leaving out those obviously unclear parts. The Evangelicals will help Jesus clear them up. Guaranteed!

      Jesus will be the Head of State! He will be represented by an empty chair at the head of the leadership table. Only the Evangelicals will be able to hear His voice. They will tell the rest of us His will.

      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

      The Evangelicals will rule in the name of a non-existent demigod.

      "Theocracies generally do not tolerate freedom of expression. They believe their dogma is divine; that it comes from divine revelation (directly from God as in Moses on Mount Sinai) and therefore, no dissenting opinion can be accurate or helpful. This often leads to widespread abuse of basic human rights."
      http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/T/Theocracy.aspx

      WoW! If the above quote doesn't make you wanna puke...

      The Evangelicals are not content to run their own lives. They want to get, by political means, what Jesus never has and never will give them, by returning.

      Vote for the Dems in 2012. There are a lot of things I would like to see changed in the Democratic Party, but at least they are not insane.

      Thank God, this country is a secular nation.

      Remember, Jesus won't really be in charge. It will be an Evangelical idiot.

      Cheers!

      October 15, 2011 at 7:34 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Chad The things you quote may be biting and sarcastic, but they are also true. I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but don't ask me to respect the content of a belief system that contains a lot that is simply silly and a lot more that is utterly creepy.

      Christianity per se doesn't threaten non-believers. But the political ambitions of Christians who espouse a belief in the aforementioned belief system with all its silliness and creepiness form a real and present danger and THAT is why non-believers hang out on belief websites. This has been explained clearly and concisely on numerous occasions and yet, as in ALL conversations you have, you just revert straight back to your naive prejudices and assumptions. And in doing so, you give us all the more to be concerned about you and people like you working so hard to affect and if possible control the political system.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad, I don't find Christianity threatening. I find people like you, HS, and herbie odious.

      Go live your life as you choose, and quit attempting to force others to do as you think they should. If they're not bothering you or infringing on your legal rights, you have no business bothering them or infringing on theirs. Just shut up and go do something useful.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Way to go Chad ! God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 7:48 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Herbert Once again, you simply assume that the only issue is whether there is no god or YOUR god. What if the Muslim fundamentalists are right: Allah exists, is the ONLY god that exists and is determined to send all Christians to hell? Do you dismiss the possibility w/o any actual disproof? If so, why do you find it so hard to believe that others dismiss the God you believe in and worship and your version of who gets what after death?

      Then again, what if the Deists and Einstein are right and there is a god in the sense of there being an uncaused cause that created the universe, but who does not concern himself with human affairs even on the grand scale, let alone with the beliefs and deeds of every individual? Among the few arguments that people try to make for god, eg "intelligent design" arguments, argue at best for some creator god and prove NOTHING about all the doctrinal details assigned to god by the believers in various religions. THis sort of god couldn't possibly "threaten" anyone, yet atheists reject this sort of god as well. What's your Christian pop psychology explanation for this?

      October 15, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @herbert juarez

      You said: "The greatest threat to the self ordained atheist is that God is.God bless"

      You will do your usual spiel, but what you won't do, is debate me on the issue. You won't, because you know you can't win. You are the blog's village idiot. I laugh at you and your god.

      Actually, since it is the believers that are positing a god, it would be their burden to supply evidence that god does indeed exist.

      No one can prove a negative. I can't prove that god does not exist. I also can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. But in life, we decide what is real and not real, based on what we see in the world around us.

      In the real world, any object that provides no evidence for its existence is classified as imaginary.

      I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature. I can't prove vampires or werewolves or fairies don't exist. But, I bet you would agree, that they are not real. They just don't fit in with the reality we see all around us.
      Skepticism is the adult response to anything, for which there is no evidence.

      Only children under the age of 6, should suspend their critical thinking and believe in magic.

      I bet you don't believe in Zeus, or Isis, or Allah, or Krishna. Right? They just don't seem "real". There just isn't any evidence... Except the universe must have a creator. Something can't come from nothing.

      So, we can look for attributes of the Christian god, that should provide evidence that He exists. Sort of like measuring the direction and force of the wind...

      If positive evidence is found, we should conclude that god probably exists.
      If positive evidence is not found, then we should conclude that the Christian God, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not exist. Just like Santa. Just like fairies. Just like vampires. Just like the other gods you reject?

      One of the most compelling reasons for rejecting a god, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s). Some, not even human (The elephant-faced god – Ganesha etc.). Each religion, each denomination of each religion, defines god's wants differently. All of these religions cannot be right. But they can all be wrong.
      Perhaps man has not yet found the one true god, or perhaps the one true god does not exist.

      Christians claim their god is Omnipotent ( all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all good).

      1). If god is Omnibenevolent, He would WANT every human to believe in Him.
      The bible says He does:
      2 Peter 3:9
      9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. King James Version (KJV)
      1 Timothy 2:4
      4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. King James Version (KJV)

      2.) If god is Omniscient, then He would KNOW exactly how to convince anyone and everyone that He exists.

      3.) If god is Omnipotent, then He would be ABLE to convince anybody and everybody that He exists.

      Yet, ~ 67% of the world's population are not Christians.
      Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      In the same vein as the above, notice how many denominations of Christianity there are (~ 38,000 – World Christian Encyclopedia (2001)).

      Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
      All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory.
      Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved.

      If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all good, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His wants would be the same?

      The bible says:
      1 Corinthians 14:33 – KJV
      33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

      Christians believe god's purpose in creating the Bible is to guide human beings towards a knowledge of God, and to help them lead moral lives. If this is so, then Christians must be certain of the meaning of the Bible.

      ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.

      "There are in excess of 1,000 Christian faith groups in North America. They teach diverse beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, the second coming, Heaven, Hell, the rapture, criteria for salvation, speaking in tongues, the atonement, what happens to persons after death, and dozens of other topics.

      On social controversies, faith groups teach a variety of conflicting beliefs about abortion access, equal rights for ho_mo$exuals and bi$exuals, who should be eligible for marriage, the death penalty, physician assisted suicide, human $exuality topics, origins of the universe, and dozens of other topics.
      The groups all base their theological teachings on the Bible. Generally speaking, the theologians in each of these faith groups are sincere, intelligent, devout, thoughtful and careful in their interpretation of the Bible. But, they come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it teaches.
      Further, most are absolutely certain that their particular interpretations are correct, and that the many hundreds of faith groups which teach opposing beliefs are in error." Source: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

      If the bible is ambiguous, then it cannot be said to be inerrant. If the bible is not without error, then how do we know which parts to accept as truth and which to reject as fiction? Is the will of god, subjective?

      The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. So far, science has found no need for a god. The claim, that God Did It, has always been wrong in the past. On this issue, I think the future will look a lot like the past.

      Belief without a reason or evidence, is called "delusional".

      Christians often quote:
      John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

      If the Christian god so loves the world, why does he allow / cause so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?

      I can explain the existence of these horrors as being due to natural causes and evolution, but my explanation fails when I include an all loving Creator in the equation. I keep getting a "Can't divide by zero" error.

      Christians say their god is omnibenevolent (all good); omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient ( all knowing)

      1. If the Christian god is all knowing, He would be AWARE of all the suffering on earth.
      2. If the Christian god is all good, He would WANT to rid the world of suffering / evil.
      3. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be ABLE to rid the world of suffering / evil.
      4. Yet, evil persists.

      Therefore, The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      The Christian god is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. But these attributes are not compatible.

      If the Christian god is all knowing, if the future can be known, then even god would be bound by events in the future. Everything would be predetermined.

      1. If the Christian god, knows what will happen in the future, and does something else...then, He is not all knowing.
      2. If the Christian god knows the future and cannot change it, then He is not all powerful.
      3. The attributes attributed to the Christian god conflict with one another.

      The Christian god with these attributes cannot exist. No being can have these attributes at the same time.

      Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.

      If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the diseases that have caused and are causing so much death and misery for humans and animals. He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and blood flukes. And worms that bore into a child's eye.

      How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. And if god didn't create them, who did?

      Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the pathogens and the parasites that have caused so much human death and misery.

      If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.

      If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.

      If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason god allows so much suffering in the world. Instead, there are natural causes for earthquakes and floods and other disasters.

      If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.

      If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is a based on a false premise.

      "If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [Christ]?" 1 Corinthians15:45

      If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible.

      If we evolved, there is no soul –> no afterlife –> no need of a heaven or hell.

      LOL, which is why the Creationists fight so hard against evolution. And why many Evangelicals are reinterpreting Genesis to encompass an old earth.
      Let's see... "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." – Umm... That's millions of years to you and me!

      The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes, or Allah, or Zeus or Santa. And you don't believe in any of those, Right?

      Cheers!

      October 15, 2011 at 7:52 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Herbert "self ordained atheist"????????

      October 15, 2011 at 7:53 pm |
    • Question

      @JR- You have a valid point that everyone has a voice which is true of a Believer/Atheist/Non-Believer and the like, as Chad rightly pointed earlier what is the value of a democratic system if the voice of the majority who support the cause cannot be upheld? It is the foundational basis for a democratic system to work.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ha! John, I noticed that, too. I wonder what an self-ordination ceremony is like? How is one ordained for not believing in a god?

      I'm sure herbie can tell us.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Question, it isn't. Look up "tyranny of the majority."

      October 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @John: "Christianity per se doesn't threaten non-believers. But the political ambitions of Christians who espouse a belief in the aforementioned belief system with all its silliness and creepiness form a real and present danger and THAT is why non-believers hang out on belief websites. This has been explained clearly and concisely on numerous occasions and yet, as in ALL conversations you have, you just revert straight back to your naive prejudices and assumptions."

      ==>I'll respond as I always do, namely: so it's not ok for me as a Christian to lobby the govt for laws that I believe in? It's a "naive prejudices and assumptions." to think that I have the same right as everyone else to lobby for what they believe in?
      really? That's what you're saying?

      October 15, 2011 at 8:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You can lobby all you want. Don't expect those whose rights are threatened by your attempts to approve of your actions.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      They're not "irrefutable".

      October 15, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Question

      It is a called a tyranny when there is dictatorship, not respecting the voice of the majority.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Question And the founders, who obviously supported democracy, were nonetheless terrified by the real and looming danger of the tyranny of the majority and hence created a bill of rights and a system of checks and balances to further the cause of individual liberty in the face of mob rule.

      What if a coalition of Mainline Protestants, Catholics, adherents of non- Christian religions and non-believers formed a coalition and used their supermajority status to attempt to outlaw Evangelical Christianity? Would Evangelicals quietly submit or fight for their right of freedom of religion? I would hope the latter and I would join the fight on their side.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:22 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      To be a self ordained atheist,is to devoted first to your self.You must first lie convincingly to yourself,this takes years of practice for most people. To firmly convince yourself of the lie that there is no God.Then you can lie to others on a regular basis without fear of conscience or known consequence.It helps to have other liars to support your case but bottom line,it must be all about you.Even those that agree with you are only there because they do agree with you.At your highest level you can then begin to gnaw away at the vitals of civilization,undermining and undercutting everything that would bring the light of Truth into any bodies life.There are very few true atheists but with years of deception and destruction you might replace God with yourself,but by that time you'll find someone beat you to it and you'll end up a double loser.But you will have self trained and self ordained your selfish self into thinking you are an atheist.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You didn't look it up.

      The founders were concerned that having a "majority rules" form of government might result in a tyranny of the majority. They were right to be worried. If majority rules, then minorities can be denied equal rights under the law. If the white male majority had ruled, blacks and women would never have been accorded the right to vote.

      Really, go back to school and try to stay awake in civics class.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Herbert Just stop lying about people, will ya? None of this latest drivel even addresses what I thought comically odd about the term "self ORDAINED atheist". You once again miss the point and just go on to repeat YOUR false account of what makes atheists atheists. You may have at one time simply not understood. But given all the many chances you've had to learn, you are either willfully ignorant, unbelievably stupid or content to tell lies.

      And speaking of comical, it's hilarious that people like you can Chad keep accusing others of being angry and hateful. You are two of the most miserable people I've ever met, especially you. The two of you compare poorly to such believers as Bo and fred and JW and Mark and DamianKnight and many, many others. You in particular come off as at least as narrow and benighted and spiteful as HeavenSent and Adelina.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So glad you cleared that up, herbie.

      I wonder, do you ever spend any time working in soup kitchens? Or at homeless shelters? Do you give to clinics for AIDS patients? Do you donate your time and energy to needy schools? Or offer to help single parents who are struggling to support themselves and their children? Just curious about the selflessness of self-ordained saints like yourself.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:37 pm |
    • Question

      @JR-When people are given equal opportunity to vote on policies that affect them collectively, it is democracy that upholds the rights of the people. Hypotheticals situations that claim to counter argue does not really make a case against democracy.However, if there is a case of violation of the fundamental rights of a group of people there is the checks and balances to ensure that those rights are not violated.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      This is gibberish. Learn to write.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      tom tom
      What do you think?God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Question Hypotheticals are precisely what the founders considered when choosing a system of government and the possibility for the tyranny of the majority was a MAJOR concern and was a major motivator for having a bill of rights.

      Most laws don't affect everyone equally and it is when people act as though, eg, allowing gays to marry somehow infringes on some totally imaginary right they seem to think they have to live in a society that denies marriage rights to gays that things pass from legitimate lobbying to an attempted totalitarian power grab. Religious people are by no means the only group guilty of this. But the religious right are a true threat to human freedom. No other way to put it.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • Question

      The moment one makes are argument for democracy it become gibberish?

      October 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      john
      What remarks do you call hateful?Do you object to calling lies, lies or those that tell them liars?If i witnessed a bank robbery and called the perpetrator a thief would that qualify for hate speech as well?God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • Scott - other

      This isn’t a “religious/spiritual forum”. This is the Belief forum, where people of all varieties of belief spend endless time berateing each other’. Though it often seems like the Christians think they should have it all to themselves

      October 15, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • Question

      @JR-The moment you argue against Democracy, you are going down a slippery slope of 'whims and fancies' of any group of people who really don't care about the interests of the larger majority..

      October 15, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Question If you have a problem with rights and liberties being protected from the tyranny of the majority, you are standing foursquare AGAINST the principles this country was founded on.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Herbert Are you really too dense to realize that the following, which you said of ALL atheists and not just specific people with whom you have a specific beef about how they are behaving, is a hateful thing to say?

      "Then you can lie to others on a regular basis without fear of conscience or known consequence.It helps to have other liars to support your case but bottom line,it must be all about you."

      October 15, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
    • Question

      @JR- Your blanket statement do not support your case against demoracy, the protection of minority has always been and will be upheld by the bill of rights.

      October 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Question, when you figure out what "demoracy" is and how to write a coherent sentence, alert the media. As it is, you appear to be either a moron or someone for whom English is a second language and American history is a complete mystery.

      October 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      herbie, I think you have no job, that you live in your mom's basement, and that you devote precisely none of your allowance to anything other than p0rn and beer.

      October 15, 2011 at 10:49 pm |
    • Free

      herbert juarez
      Ah... If there was proof that God really existed then very few people would choose to be atheists, right? Until that day arrives, God doesn't pose much of a 'threat' to us.

      October 15, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
    • Question

      Tom-When did the protection of rights wrest on idiots like you?

      October 16, 2011 at 12:23 am |
    • Sark

      @Tom-It is obvious from your trolling here you suffer from accute dyslexia. Go get some help for your pathetic self. nonsense

      October 16, 2011 at 12:28 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So, Question and Sark, do you two make hot and heavy in the sack?

      If so, it's pretty much the extent of anything interesting you have to present, since your comments are without exception imbecilic almost beyond belief.

      October 16, 2011 at 12:52 am |
    • Sark

      Tom-Looks like your medication has kicked in, don't stress yourself too much with inane comments.

      October 16, 2011 at 1:01 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Did I leave a mark, honey? So sorry you're hurt.

      Maybe you should grow a thicker skin. Or a better brain.

      October 16, 2011 at 1:09 am |
    • Sark

      Tom-You moron.,arguing intelligently is not soemthing you know anything about, just relax those two brain cells u've got.

      October 16, 2011 at 1:21 am |
  19. hippypoet

    "My Faith: Who does God listen to?"

    ANSWER: no one since Abraham...and thats where you believers get all your info from besides the commandments, so one has to take the very base of your foundation for belief and ask yourself...did Abraham really hear gods voice or did he just hear a voice that NOONEelse heard and so once he made it known that he heard things claimed it was god to ease his clearly insane mind and those around him. just a thought.

    October 15, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
    • J.W

      So why do you think that people would believe him?

      October 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Know What

      If ol' Abe had pulled that trick today he would be diagnosed as a psychopathic schizophrenic and would be inst-itutionalized in a facility for the criminally insane. These conditions can be hereditary... and it seems that Abe passed that trait along.

      Moses, on the other hand, was probably just a power-hungry liar.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
    • Know What

      J.W,

      Why did/do people believe Jim Jones and David Koresh? Mohammad? L. Ron Hubbard?

      October 15, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • Richard Kaiser

      Know What,,,, wrote,,, "If ol' Abe had pulled that trick today he would be diagnosed as a psychopathic schizophrenic and would be inst-itutionalized in a facility for the criminally insane."

      An asylum for the reason that one may endanger one's life or anothers life is the norm nowadays, "Know What".

      There are many people who have ongoing psychopathic tendencies and are living among us. Many who should be diagnosed having 'multiple' personality disorders is no longer the case. Thru psychotropic medications, mainly anti-psychotic meds are personality disorders being held in check. What I find curious about such medications is as to how they are manifested within the brain and just exactly what is it such meds do to keep such personality disorders in check. Most of what I've been told are that they keep certain levels of the brain's manufacturing of certain chemicals such as dopamine, a neurotransmitter. These anti-psychotics may also prevent many psychotic chemicals from entering the brain's cellular structures.

      October 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  20. Colin

    Ok, a dose of reality please. The whole idea of prayers being answered is completely absurd. Stop for a moment and think it through. A being powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,700,000 years ago is monitoring your thoughts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, using his telepathic powers. If he hears you praying, he will evaluate your plaint and if he is so minded, will intervene to change what would otherwise be the course of human history in small ways, to comport to your wishes.

    He is also apparently simultaneously wire-tapping the minds of all 6,000,000,000 people on the planet, listen to them and answering their prayers. Even if only 10% pray in any given day, that’s 600 million prayers a day being answered. I wonder why none of them ever involve the re-growing of a severed leg or lost eye. They are always, 100% of the time, perfectly explicable by natural events.

    Have you ever noticed how quickly religious nonsense crumbles in a heap if we stop giving it the free pass from common sense we are told we must and subject it to the same degree of scrutiny we should any other outrageous claims.

    October 15, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
    • Colin

      Sorry 13,700,000,000 years ago. I dropped a "000".

      October 15, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
    • J.W

      Well if God created the whole universe why could he not listen to the prayers of 6 billion people. Why could he not listen to the prayers of other being on other planets if there are any?

      October 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Colin

      JW – once you invoke magic anything is possible, becuase you are no longer bound by any rules and can plug any gap in your story by invoking the magic powers of your god(s). What I am saying is that the very idea of a being powerful enough to create the Universe is absurd. The idea that it also reads all 6 billion human minds 24 hours a day makes the concept even more preposterous – once again, unless we invoke magic powers and calim it is able to read 6 billion minds simultaneously. Dark Ages nonsense, my friend.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
    • J.W

      Well I suppose whether or not God exists in the first place is where we will get stuck. But if there is a being that could create the universe then I do not think it would necessarily take more power to answer prayers.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Come on Colin! Think outside The Babble, I mean the box! If there really is a god, monitoring 6,000,000,000 or 6,000,000,000,000 would be child's play!! When all you are doing is making up the rules to the "World's Largest Fantasy Role Playing Game" any thing is possible.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • question1

      If we all are "God" & His spirit dwells within us, of course He knows what we're all thinking all the time. That isn't magical thinking. I know what I believe, but I'm interested to hear what YOU believe is the force that animates a human body – electricity? It can't be that or we could theoretically revive a corpse a la Frankenstein. What "force" then is the life "force"?

      October 15, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Yes Colin the old fallback position will always be called into play. Like the wormhole or hyperdrive God is the catch-all utility knife of literary devices. It really is the ultimate cop-out. God is endowed with perfection in every sense. He's perfectly powerful, thus able to accomplish anything. Perfectly wise so anything we can't comprehend is just simply beyond us and only he can know. He's also perfectly moral so wherever we see injustice or moral dilemma it's because his superior morality is again beyond us. In Star Trek we would call him"Q". Now if only they could realize just how much the Bible deserves to be in the same book section as all the other fantasy/fiction.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • Colin

      question1 – the force that "animates" the human body is well understood. It is electrical impulses in the brain. That is why 100% of living people have them and 100% of dead people do not. The same is true of all organisms that have a brain or an equivalent organ. I have no idea how you can extrapolate your frankenstien conundrum from that.

      October 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • Colin

      Hey Atheist Steve, I have to go. I think Carl Sagan left a fire breathing dragon in my garage. -:)

      October 15, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
    • J.W

      Colin I had a scientific question I have not been able to figure out. I figured that you may know. What is the first organism to have a male and a female?

      October 15, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Colin

      JW – sorry mate, I've got no idea. I doubt we even know. Presumably, it would have been an early eukaryotic organism from the Pre-Cambrian. The paucity of fossils from that era probably means we will never know.

      October 15, 2011 at 5:06 pm |
    • J.W

      I would think that the original one celled organisms would not have had a male and female. Seems like things would have been simpler if we were all the same s.ex. I was just curious if that was something that was a mutation in an early organism or if it is thought to have evolved over time.

      October 15, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
    • Mark

      Classic example of athiestic narrow (and small) mindedness. I always love this type of "educated" and deep thinking. Basically, when you boil it down, it really reads like this...

      "It can't be true because I don't personally understand it".

      Pardon me Colin if I stand truly UN-impressed by your "wisdom". Truth is truth, whether you believe it or not, whether you understand it or not, whether you accept it or not. Something doesn't cease to be true simply because you don't believe it. If that were the case, then I would cease to believe that...

      1.) I'm getting older and won't always be young.
      2.) That one day my kids will grow up and not need me anymore.
      3.) That I'm bound by the laws of gravity, and I cannot fly like a bird off of my roof top.
      4.) etc, etc..

      Get my point? All of those things ARE true regardless of my position on them. I will get old one day. My kids will grow up and move away one day, and yes if I jump off the roof, I'm probably going to break my neck. No amount of denying any of those things will ever change them.

      October 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
    • Know What

      Mark,

      I will not be able to answer as succinctly at Colin, but...

      1.) Do you believe in Leprechauns?
      2.) Do you believe that throwing salt over your shoulder nixes the bad luck of spilling it?
      3.) Do you believe that carrying a rabbit's foot brings good fortune?
      4.) etc. etc.

      Things that are the truth have verified evidence. Your claims of supernatural beings and events have none.

      October 15, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • Colin

      Mark, I personally do not understand quantum mechanics or general relativity, but that does not make me reject them, despite the fact that they lead to some extraordinary and counter-intuitive results. I reject the magic and supernatural concept of a god because it is no explanation at all. It is a cop out, a lack of understanding. Attributing something we don't fully understand to "god" is simply putting a halo on a question mark and abandning the challange. The great differentiator between the two is a little thing called "evidence".

      You say "Truth is truth, whether you believe it or not, whether you understand it or not, whether you accept it or not. Something doesn't cease to be true simply because you don't believe it.'

      So, where do you stand on evolution?

      October 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Mark, believing in something doesn't make it exist. Your logic is flawed. Truth requires proof, otherwise, it is simply conjecture. There is no proof of any god, however we have proof of how species evolve over time without the need of divine interference. We may no know how the universe began, but claiming god did it without even the slightest evidence that god is simply giving up on looking for the truth for the sake of a comforting lie.

      October 15, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      tallulah13
      So true. And it's not just conjecture about the nature of God existence and how he affects reality. The biggest lie is the promise of eternal life. This is the lynch pin that everything hinges on. Without the afterlife worship directed at a god is pointless. There is no evidence that we possess a soul. A fabrication to evade the grim reality of our own mortality.

      October 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • Chad

      @Know, @Colin, @Tal "there is no evidence" [paraphrase mine]

      That's probably the single largest perpetuated un-truth about the God of Abraham and His Son..

      Evidence:
      1. Origin of the universe: Einstein, Hawkings both say that some force external to the observed universe was necessary for the big bang.

      2. Why does the universe obey laws?
      Leonard Mlodinow (co-author along with Stephen Hawkings of "An even briefer history of time") himself stated “Science can not disprove God, it can not EVER explain why the universe obeys laws”

      3. Who exactly was Jesus Christ? Was he insane to believe Himself to be the Son of God? Were all of the people that claimed they saw Him resurrected insane? Some kind of mass hallucination? Remember, it isnt possible that those people made up the story of the resurrection, they were tortured and killed for that belief. Now, people are tortured and killed believing all kinds of crazy things, but they BELIEVE them to be true. If the people made up a story about a resurrection, they knew the story was a lie, they certainly wouldn't endure torture for it.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad, there's no proof that there's a god or that Jesus was the son of a god. None. You can keep saying there is, but in fact all you have is your belief, not proof.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Since tom tom is always wrong I give the points to Chad ,way to go Chad!God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 7:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If herbie's on your side, you know you're a lost cause.

      October 15, 2011 at 7:50 pm |
    • Chad

      no proof.. sheesh.. I list three points of data, irrefutable proof, and you just continue with fingers-in-ears.. Honestly it takes a thousand times more "belief in some thing despite all evidence to the contrary" to be an atheist than a Christian. 🙂

      Take a look at the fossil record. Darwin's theory of gradual mutation has been completely rejected: "The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation"

      "Punctuated Equilibrium"(the mutation necessary to explain the fossil record occurs in such extraordinarily short time periods that ALL intermediate forms have escaped fossilization) is now put forth as the explanation. You realize how phenomenally unlikely it is that a species stays stable for millions of years,then in one brief explosion, ALL of the components of complex structures like the eye mutate at the exact necessary time? Nothing happens for millions of years, then poof-poof-poof, all these inter-related mutations just happen to happen? Explain to me how they WEREN'T happening for millions of years, THEN explain to me how they ALL managed to happen in one short period of time? Talk about the willful suspension of disbelief...

      October 15, 2011 at 8:01 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      I know the difference between a Steve and a Keith.Some here don't,tom tom and boy do they backpedal when it is pointed back at them.Not laughing with you ,I am laughing at you .Loser ! God bless

      October 15, 2011 at 8:04 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @JW Serioulsy, man. If you can find your way to an obscure website like this blog, you should be able to browse your way to any number of actually informative wenbsites, like this one:

      http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/19.Evol.of.Se-x.HTML

      Remove the hyphen in the "naughty word".

      Oh, and while well-defined male vs female may not exist among one-celled organisms, gene exchange between one-celled organisms has been widely attested and may well be the "first step" in the evolution of se-x.

      Hermaphroditism is common. So one possible pathways may include gene sharing -> specialized organs to facilitate gene sharing -> specialized "male and female" sender vs receptor organisms within one organism -> strains within a generally hermaphroditic species that are "better" at sending vs receiving genes leading to eventual se-xual differentiation.

      There are many species in which organisms all start out female and then grow into males or vice versa.

      You've heard of vestigial organisms, no doubt. There are some species in which males have become virtually vestigial organisms, mere sperm carriers that are actually not even viable except as parasites on the females.

      In many species, organisms typically grow up to be one or the other and stay that way, but which one you become is not genetically determined, but environmentally determined. Crocodilians are a famous case.

      If you ask evolutionary questions about se-xual differentiation, it helps to keep in mind that the human condition is in this as in so many other aspects of nature by no means universal, or even the norm.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      They're not "irrefutable", Chad.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
    • Chad

      Well then, refute them 🙂

      October 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Don't have to. They aren't proof. They're opinions.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • John Richardson

      And there goes Chad again, once more just restating his demonstrably FALSE claim that punctuated equilibrium refutes evolution, when in fact the authors of the PE theory and all of its many adherents are committed evolutionists and proposed and support PE as part of specifically evolutionary theory. I posted a link to a video with quotes from Gould stating his repugnance at how creationists, whether through stupidity or deceit, continually misrepresent his and Eldredge's work. And Chad just goes back to repeating the same misconceptions/lies. It is this lack of even a modicu-m of intellectual integrity that makes creationists like Chad simply impossible to respect.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • Chad

      🙂

      October 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Exactly so, John. The stupidity and ignorance of Chad's posts are truly astounding. They almost surpass those of the herbal one.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @John: "restating his demonstrably FALSE claim that punctuated equilibrium refutes evolution"
      I did say that? I could have sworn I said that Darwins theory of gradual mutation has been rejected, and now PE is put forth to explain the stasis in the fossil record. What I have been saying all along is that the notion that it's possible to have NOTHING mutate for millions of years, then poof-poof-poof EVERYTHING comes together in one grand paroxysm of precisely necessary mutations (but all random of course) refutes itself.

      perhaps you can provide a link to where I said that PE refutes evolution.. 🙂

      October 15, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What's with you and the stupid emoticons? Are you 15, like herbie? Really, dude, do you sign your name with little hearts and circles?

      October 15, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Chad You stated that the Darwin's theory of gradual mutation has been completely rejected. That is false. I explained in excruciating detail what PE does and does not say and sent a link to the Stephen Jay Gould website that explains it all in even more excruciating detail. And yet here you are again misstating even the basics. You get virtually nothing right ever and seem bound and determined not to educate yourself even a little on the relevant topics by reading what the authors themselves said, even though both of PE's main adherents have written many popular and high accessibly pieces on the matter and have even devoted entire essays and chapters to correcting creationist misrepresentations. You are intellectually dishonest.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
    • Chad

      "Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species"

      "Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."["

      "The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation"

      You can try and slice and dice John, but you cant dodge the fact that Darwins theory of gradual mutation is gone. Put to death by the fossil record.

      October 15, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • Mark

      @Colin...

      You asked:
      "So, where do you stand on evolution?"

      I stand on the side of truth. I'll leave it to you to decipher (from my previous post) what side that is.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:00 pm |
    • Mark

      @Tallulah13...

      "There is no proof of any god, however we have proof of how species evolve over time without the need of divine interference."

      OK, you must be new to this whole, "argument between creation & evolution" thing, so I'll give you your first lesson. To make statements about the "proof" of evolution, or to use words like "proven" or "fact" just make you look foolish. Even the (athiestic) leaders in the fields of geology, biology, paleontology(sp), cosmology, and any other "ology" that you can name, will readily admit that there is no "proof" of evolution. Actually, the "evidence" you speak of contradicts the theory of evolution and most closely fits creation model (but I digress). People who make claims about the "proof" of evolution are either liers, ignorant, or both.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
    • Question

      @Chad-Great posts as usual!

      Remember the pathetic crutch for some of these specimens is to divert attention from the topic of discussion when it is unable to post a valid counter.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
    • Scott - other

      @ question1: “It can't be that or we could theoretically revive a corpse a la Frankenstein.” In your lifetime you will probably see scientists assemble inert chemicals and compounds into a simple LIVING cell. They have already created a living, functioning cellular nucleus from inanimate parts

      October 15, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
    • Scott

      Mrak-Great!, you have to keep in mind when you respond some of these 'handles' are woefully undereducated.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • Scott

      Mark and Chad-I I thought you had established the facts about Creation Vs. Evolution quite clear earlier on. Anyhow your posts are just great!!!

      October 15, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Mark, I highly recommend Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True". It's an easy to read compilation of facts and proof that evolution is very real and continues to alter life on this planet. Evolution is observable in bacteria. Your ignorance on the subject is appalling.

      Chad, your personal interpretation of facts proves nothing beyond the fact that you use personal interpretation of facts to try to prove you own opinion. The accepted scientific view is far removed from your own.

      October 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Mark, You are of course correct in stating that just because one doesn't believe in something, that doesn't mean it's not true. Please apply this to ALL of the following:

      1) modern quantum theories of the origin of the universe
      2) evolutionary theory
      3) the concept that being gay os not a choice
      4) all other religions

      October 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm |
    • Mark

      @John Richardson...

      You forgot to say please (eyes rolling).

      October 15, 2011 at 10:41 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Chad

      Your arguments, even if successful, do not prove the god of Abraham "did it". You could insert any god past or present into your arguments. It also works with a Ketchup bottle, but only the pricier brands.

      Cheers!

      October 16, 2011 at 12:11 am |
    • Chad

      As always John, I am indebted to you for providing an impetus for investigation..

      If one googles "modern quantum theories of the origin of the universe", the first link is a wikipedia entry on Determinism.

      Fascinating stuff:

      "Intrinsic to the debate concerning determinism is the issue of what caused the universe. The idea is that something that is in some sense 'outside' of the chain of determinism, and our usual understanding of causality, may have started the universe. Deism, for instance, makes a Cosmological argument: it holds that the universe has been deterministic since creation, but ascribes the creation to a metaphysical God. God may have begun the process, the deist argues, but God has not influenced its progression. Scientists have also approached the idea of something in some sense "causing" the universe, by appealing to a multiverse or related idea of Membranes. It remains debatable whether the problem has really been solved.

      To be clear, most conception of determinism seem to face a puzzle when it comes to causality. Causality might be understood to mean that all events have prior causes. This suggests that there is no event (or group of events) that causes itself. There now seems to be only two possibilities – a dilemma: there is either (a) an infinite chain of causes which never "started" per se, and (b) something started causality as we understand it, but does not itself need to be caused. In other words: Did the universe or some event prior to it always exist? Or, if something needed to start the universe, what started that something – and how can we really prevent an infinite regress of causes?"

      One way of this dilemma calls into question the idea of causality. It proposes making one exception: a creation event. A creation event is presumably not itself a "cause" in the sense of the word as used in the formulation of the original problem. These ideas were mentioned above, and attempt to terminate the regress just discussed. The idea of deism, for instance, is that some agency (or God) created space, time, and the ent ities found in the universe by means of some process that is analogous to causation (but again, is not causation as we know it)."

      Two observations:
      1) You were bluffing on your "modern quantum theories of the origin of the universe" as an answer to my assertion that Scientists said that an external force was required for the origin.
      2) "something started causality as we understand it, but does not itself need to be caused. In other words: Did the universe or some event prior to it always exist"

      yes: some 3500 years after it was written down, science is coming to realize the truth of "Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God."

      Kind of amazing isnt it? The uniqueness of the creation story, so completely unlike any of its time. And this idea that God is eternal, no beginning, no end... Very unique concepts that these goat herders made up 3500 years ago when they decided to create this new religion... amazing..
      🙂

      October 16, 2011 at 12:27 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      All that braying, yet no proof there is a god.

      Nice effort towards using the most words to say nothing of substance, though.

      October 16, 2011 at 12:55 am |
    • David Johnson

      @tallulah13

      Richard Dawkin's latest book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" is way cool to. It really caused me to question my faith...

      Cheers!

      October 16, 2011 at 2:30 am |
    • Know What

      Chad,

      Have you ever heard of the ancient Egyptian religion? Here is one of their 'prayers' to Amun-Ra:

      "HAIL to thee, Amun-Ra, Lord of the thrones of the earth, the oldest existence, ancient of heaven, support of all things;
      Chief of the gods, lord of truth; father of the gods, maker of men and beasts and herbs; maker of all things above and below;
      Deliverer of the sufferer and oppressed, judging the poor;
      Lord of wisdom, lord of mercy; most loving, opener of every eye, source of joy, in whose goodness the gods rejoice, thou whose name is hidden.
      Thou art the one, maker of all that is, the one; the only one; maker of gods and men; giving food to all.
      Hail to thee, thou one with many heads; sleepless when all others sleep, adoration to thee.
      Hail to thee from all creatures from every land, from the height of heaven, from the depth of the sea.
      The spirits thou hast made extol thee, saying, welcome to thee, father of the fathers of the gods; we worship thy spirit which is in us."

      Moses was quite educated in the Egyptian religion. He adapted it for his new 'kingdom'.

      October 16, 2011 at 4:01 am |
    • John Richardson

      @Chad I wasn't bluffing about anything. Someone pointed out, correctly, that just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't mean that it isn't true and I simply pointed out that it is true not just for Christianity, it is also true for quantum theories of the origin of the universe, evolution, claims like the one that gays don't choose to be gay as well as other religions such as Islam, including versions of Islam that say that Christians will all suffer eternal torment in hell.

      As for your typical exercise in shallow reading, I don't presume to have all the answer regarding such big questions as determinism and I am in point of fact agnostic about the latest quantum theories of the origins of the universe, which are speculative and extremely theory bound in a world in which theories can and do change. I contrast this with evolution, which is overwhelmingly well docu-mented empirically. But those who adamantly reject theories like those of Hawking because it upsets their theological apple cart aren't even in the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

      Now, I'm not going to spend a long time demonstrating once again just how poor your reading comprehension skills are, but the article you cite overtly mentioned a Deistic uncaused cause as a possibility, which a two enormous steps removed from faith in the existence of a personal god like the one in the bible. So no, I'm not the least bit impressed by some biblical verbiage about a typical ancient deity that isn't even relevant to the question of whether some sort of uncaused cause needs to be posited to explain the origin of the universe. All cultures have creation myths. he fact that the ancient hebrews had one that isn't in any important sense more consistent with modern science than any other primitive tribe's is nothing to marvel at.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:48 am |
    • John Richardson

      @Mark I said "Please apply this to all of the following:" And then you said that I "forgot to say please". Even ignoring for the moment that your response is incredibly adolescent even if I hadn't said 'please', I did in point of fact say 'please'. So thanks for showing once again that Christian apologists like you and Mark can drag your eyes over any text and simply not see what it actually says when you don't want to see what it actually says. It's almost funny, but ultimately disturbing.

      October 16, 2011 at 7:55 am |
    • John Richardson

      I meant to say "like you and Chad". I was addressing Mark.

      October 16, 2011 at 8:24 am |
    • Chad

      @Chad I wasn't bluffing about anything.
      =>you were bluffing 🙂

      "evolution, which is overwhelmingly well docu-mented empirically."
      =>You guys say that, literally, all the time, and my response is always the same: example please? Have you found a better one than the guy who did a masters thesis on different shaped conch shells?

      "Now, I'm not going to spend a long time demonstrating once again just how poor your reading comprehension skills are, but the article you cite overtly mentioned a Deistic uncaused cause as a possibility, which a two enormous steps removed from faith in the existence of a personal god like the one in the bible. "
      LOL
      The fact that science acknowledges the necessity of an "uncaused cause" is proof positive that science continues to progress in their understanding of how God did/does it.

      October 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @KnowWhat "Have you ever heard of the ancient Egyptian religion? Here is one of their 'prayers' to Amun-Ra:
      "HAIL to thee, Amun-Ra, Lord of the thrones of the earth, the oldest existence, ancient of heaven, support of all things;....
      Moses was quite educated in the Egyptian religion. He adapted it for his new 'kingdom'."

      Like John, it looks like I am indebted to you also for prompting some investigation.
      According to wikipedia, Aman-Ra was "self created", so he had a beginning, unlike the God of Abraham who has no beginning, no end. As I said, that notion is absolutely unique now and then. Kind of amazing dont you think?

      Also, Moses had no kingdom... You might be thinking of David or Solomon..

      October 16, 2011 at 7:57 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.