home
RSS
June 22nd, 2012
11:27 AM ET

Prominent atheist blogger converts to Catholicism

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – She went from atheist to Catholic in just over 1,000 words.

Leah Libresco, who’d been a prominent atheist blogger for the religion website Patheos, announced on her blog this week that after years of debating many “smart Christians,” she has decided to become one herself, and that she has begun the process of converting to Catholicism.

Libresco, who had long blogged under the banner “Unequally Yoked: A geeky atheist picks fights with her Catholic boyfriend,” said that at the heart of her decision were questions of morality and how one finds a moral compass.

“I had one thing that I was most certain of, which is that morality is something we have a duty to,” Libresco told CNN in an interview this week, a small cross dangling from her neck. “And it is external from us. And when push came to shove, that is the belief I wouldn’t let go of. And that is something I can’t prove.”

CNN's Belief Blog: the faith angles behind the big stories

According to a Patheos post she wrote on Monday, entitled “This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,” she began to see parts of Christianity and Catholicism that fit her moral system. Though she now identifies as a Catholic, Libresco questions certain aspects of Catholicism, including the church’s positions on homosexuality, contraception and some aspects of religious liberty.

“There was one religion that seemed like the most promising way to reach back to that living Truth,” Libresco wrote about Catholicism in her conversion announcement post, which has been shared over 18,000 times on Facebook. “I asked my friend what he suggests we do now, and we prayed the night office of the Liturgy of the Hours together.”

At the end of the post, Libresco announces that she is in a Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults class and is preparing for baptism. She will continue to blog for Patheos, but under the banner, “A geeky convert picks fights in good faith.”

According to Dan Welch, director of marketing for Patheos, Libresco’s post has received around 150,000 page views so far.

“Leah's blog has gotten steadily more popular since she arrived at Patheos, but a typical post on her blog is probably closer to the range of 5,000 page views,” Welch wrote in an email. “Even now, a few days later, her blog is probably getting 20-30 times its normal traffic.”

Libresco’s announcement has left some atheists scratching their heads.

“I think atheists were surprised that she went with Catholicism, which seems like a very specific choice,” Hemant Mehta, an atheist blogger at Patheos, told CNN. “I have a hard time believing how someone could jump from I don’t believe in God to a very specific church and a very specific God.”

Mehta says that Libresco’s conversion is a “one-off thing” and not something that signals any trend in atheism. “The trends are very clear, the conversions from Catholicism to atheism are much more likely to happen than the other way around,” he said.

But while atheists were puzzled by the conversion, others commended Libresco.

“I know I’ve prayed for her conversion several times, always thinking she would make a great Catholic,” wrote Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger. “And with this news, it looks like that will happen. Today heaven is roaring with joy.”

Thomas L. McDonald, a Catholic Patheos blogger, welcomed Libresco to the fold: “Welcome. I know this was hard, and will continue to be so. Don’t worry if the Catholics make it as for difficult for you as the atheists. We only do it to people we love.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Libresco says one of the most common questions she has received is how she'll deal with atheists now.

“The great thing about a lot of the atheist and skeptic community is that people talk more critically about ideas and want to see proof provided,” Libresco said. “That kind of analytical thinking is completely useful and the Catholic Church doesn’t need to and should not be afraid of because if you’ve got the facts on your side, you hope they win.”

Libresco is just switching the side she thinks the facts are on.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Catholic Church

soundoff (7,475 Responses)
  1. Mike

    Interesting that some must get angry because of her CHOICE.... why is that??? Is there safety in numbers???

    June 23, 2012 at 9:28 am |
    • Maj. Set B. Ack

      Actually, their number has never been safety at all. We can say it's more on (bruise) ego and pride.

      June 23, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
  2. Mike

    The signature of a creator is everywhere, and definitely in our genes.....

    June 23, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • Arvoasitis

      An interesting comment, indeed. It seems that a specific region of the human brain is set aside for religion. It is immediately beside the region reserved for love, and is found as well in the other mammals. I suspect that this region keeps nagging atheists, who become such for purely intellectual and moral reasons.
      .

      June 23, 2012 at 9:45 am |
  3. RossC

    "The Living Truth" – That's religious nutter language. She was never a real atheist.

    June 23, 2012 at 9:25 am |
  4. cm

    What a phony. Until she embraces the whole JC as son of God thing, this is obviously just her making peace with her bf to get a nice big Catholic wedding and then she'll go back to her usual reasoned ways.

    June 23, 2012 at 8:56 am |
  5. ReasonableQuest

    How do you go from "I can't come up with a good explanation for morality" to "therefore I'm going to accept that Catholicism / the Christian God is true"? I think the fact the her boyfriend is Catholic explains more than any reasoned argument can. I can see going from atheist to some kind of Universalist / Deist position, but Catholic? Morality is easily explained by the evolution of societies. People can generally figure out that not harming others or yourself generally benefits yourself and society. People who want to harm others to benefit themselves we call sociopaths, and as a society pass laws against such action.

    Christianity is not a moral system, because it provides a scapegoat for being immoral. Harm others and just ask imaginary Jesus to forgive you instead of making amends to the harmed. The morality of the Bible comes from divine revelation that can't be questioned instead of using reason, logic, and compassion to determine how to treat other people.

    June 23, 2012 at 8:47 am |
  6. Colin

    Dear Leah:

    God here.

    Thank you for believing in me, but, unfortunately, I have some bad news for you. I do not exist.

    The concept of a 13,700,00,000 year old being, capable of creating the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies, monitoring simultaneously the thoughts and actions of the 7 billion human beings on this planet is ludicrous.

    Second, if I did, I would have left you a book a little more consistent, timeless and independently verifiable than the collection of Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology you call the Bible. Hell, I bet you cannot tell me one thing about any of its authors or how and why it was edited over the Centuries, yet you cite them for the most extraordinary of claims.

    Thirdly, when I sent my “son” (whatever that means, given that I am god and do not mate) to Earth, he would have visited the Chinese, Ja.panese, Europeans, Russians, sub-Saharan Africans, Australian Aboriginals, Mongolians, Polynesians, Micronesians, Indonesians and native Americans, not just a few Jews. He would also have exhibited a knowledge of something outside of the Iron Age Middle East.

    Fourthly, I would not spend my time hiding, refusing to give any tangible evidence of my existence, and then punish those who are smart enough to draw the natural conclusion that I do not exist by burning them forever. That would make no sense to me, given that I am the one who elected to withhold all evidence of my existence in the first place.

    Fifthly, in the same vein, I would not make about 5% of the human population gay, then punish them for being that way. In fact, I wouldn’t care about how humans have $ex at all, given that I created all of the millions of millions of species on the planet, all of whom are furiously reproducing all the time. Human $ex would be of no interest to me, given that I can create Universes. Has it ever occurred to you that your obsession with making rules around human $ex is an entirely human affair?

    Sixth, I would have smited all traditional Catholics, (and evangelicals and fundamentalists) long before this. You people drive me nuts. You are so small minded and yet you speak with such false authority. Many of you still believe in the talking snake nonsense from Genesis. I would kill all of you for that alone and burn you for an afternoon (burning forever is way too barbaric even for me to contemplate).

    Seventh, the whole idea of members of one species on one planet surviving their own physical deaths to “be with me” is utter, mind-numbing nonsense. Grow up. You will die. Get over it. I did. Hell, at least you had a life. I never even existed in the first place.

    Eighth, I do not read your minds, or “hear your prayers” as you euphemistically call it. There are 7 billion of you. Even if only 10% prayed once a day, that is 700,000,000 prayers. This works out at 8,000 prayers a second – every second of every day. Meanwhile I have to process the 100,000 of you who die every day between heaven and hell. Dwell on the sheer absurdity of that for a moment.

    Ninthly, had I existed, do you really think my representation on Earth would have such a history of corruption, retardation of science, financial misdeeds, political intrigue, outright criminal behavior and $exual misconduct, including pedophilia, as the Vatican does. I mean, come on! As a CEO, I would be fired for allowing my organization to run amok century after century.

    Finally, the only reason you even consider believing in me is because of where you were born. Had you been born in India, you would likely believe in the Hindu gods, if born in Tibet, you would be a Buddhist. Every culture that has ever existed has had its own god(s) and they always seem to favor that particular culture, its hopes, dreams and prejudices. What, do you think we all exist? If not, why only yours?

    Look, let’s be honest with ourselves. There is no god. Believing in me was fine when you thought the World was young, flat and simple. Now we know how enormous, old and complex the Universe is.

    Move on, Leah– get over me. I did.

    God

    June 23, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • Ralph

      TLDR

      June 23, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • Mike

      You have one BIG problem, you are not God....

      June 23, 2012 at 9:31 am |
  7. aone

    top? what cnn mean by top atheist? i dont know this woman who is she?

    June 23, 2012 at 8:20 am |
  8. God

    Yeah, I'm fake. Sorry to break it to you like this.

    June 23, 2012 at 8:20 am |
  9. SouthernGent

    We have eyewitness accounts of Christ's miracles. Why would anyone not accept that?

    June 23, 2012 at 8:10 am |
    • Colin

      Actually, we don't.

      The traditional story, believed by the approximately 10% of Christians who even know the supposed ident.ities of the 4 authors of the Gospels, is that Matthew and John were 2 of the 12 Apostles of Christ, that Mark was a travelling companion of St. Peter and Luke was a traveling companion of St. Paul. Of the 4, only Matthew and John are said to have been eyewitnesses to anything Christ said or did. Even the Catholics, hardly a sect known for being tight with historical accuracy, do not claim that Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses. Nor for that matter was St. Paul. He never met Christ and, anyway, he says virtually nothing about what Christ said or did during his life.

      There is an immediate problem with the two remaining “eyewitnesses,” however and virtually no biblical scholars think they witnessed anything.

      1. The author who wrote Matthew wrote about 40 years after Christ was crucified. This would put Matthew in his 70s before he began to write, assuming he was a contemporary of Christ. This at an age when life expectancy was in the 30s or 40s. Further, the author of Matthew does not even claim to be Matthew or to have been a witness to anything Christ said or did. He tells the story of Christ totally from the perspective of a third party recounting stories he himself was told including the story of Christ meeting Matthew, who he supposedly is!!

      2. John is even less likely. The author who wrote John wrote about 60 years after Christ died. This would make John about 90 before he wrote.

      3. The original gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and the Apostles. The Apostles were poor, working class people. The Apostle John was a fisherman and Matthew a tax collector. They would most likely not have been able to speak Greek, a language restricted to the very elite at the time, much less write in it. 95% of people were illiterate at the time.

      4. They both rely heavily on the earlier writings of Mark in compiling their gospels. Why would eyewitnesses need to rely on accounts by a person who was not claimed to be an eyewitness and who lived well after the events they supposedly witnessed?

      No, unfortunately, the sad fact is that there is nothing written by Christ himself and nothing written by any eyewitness. The best we have is stories recorded by devoted followers who were two or three generations after he died and were clearly motivated by a strong religious bias in their writings. Taking what they say as true is literally the equivalent of taking the word of a third generation Branch Davidian (writing in 2030 or 2050) that David Koresh performed miracles at Waco before the flames engulfed him back in 1993.

      And this is the BEST we have!!

      June 23, 2012 at 8:16 am |
    • Natch

      Because some people don't want to hear that the Universe doesn't revolve around them, and that they're not the best thing since the creation! People who cannot believe in a higher being are either too ignorant to look at the truth, or too scared to admit to it!

      June 23, 2012 at 8:18 am |
    • aone

      hahaha you funny

      June 23, 2012 at 8:21 am |
    • Mirosal

      It isn't about being scared or afraid. To admit that "I don't know" about the answers to the universe is the first step in understanding the universe. Religion will tell you the answer ("god" did it). But an intelligent person will search for the answers, knowing he doesn't know, and THAT is what drives him to seek an answer, not blindly accepting the answer from someone who looks at a 2000 year old book, filled with 3000 year old stories and gives up after reading it.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:52 am |
    • JWT

      Natch – very funny – an amazing amount of christians are as ingnorant as its possible to be and religion has nothing to do with that status. There is no more reason to believe in god than there is reason not to.

      June 23, 2012 at 9:20 am |
    • Ralph

      Colin,

      I think you need to distinguish Catholic teaching from other Bible-only people. For Catholics (and Orthodox) the story is that Christ did not leave a book, it left a community, Church, that taught his teaching through oral tradition. Those traditions have been written down in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles (which are older than most gospels), and other writings that, while did not make it to the Canon (Bible), serve as important historical references. Case in point, the Didache, an early Cathecism that predates the Gospels, but provides us the basic structure of the Mass and what Christians believed.

      Second, the dating of the Gospels that you have is wrong. The Ryland papiri has shown that the dating is earlier than thought. So, the testimonies of miracles stated in the Acts don't seem that farfetched, even if extraordinary.

      In terms of life expectancy, you know that this is computed through averages? Life expectancy was low because infant mortality was unusually high and because the lack of antibiotics. People who made it past certain age tended to live long lives, as they shown to be pretty resistant to most of the illnesses of the time. There is nothing unusual for someone making it past 40 to make it to 70 relatively healthy.

      Ultimately, it is pretty ridiculous to apply forensic standards to these accounts. What we do know is that the things that can be verified, have been verified in terms of historicity,and the extraordinary claims have not been able to be falsified (as negated through evidence).

      Lastly, and this is not to Colin, as he/she took the time to respond thoughtfully, all these advances in thought, Enlightment, scientific method, morality, have been only been made possible through the Christian Church. Basically, we have a bunch of parasites that benefit on the moral structure created by Christendom, who now pretend to destroy it, and civilization with it. As Atheism does not provide any ground for a stable society focused on the good of its individuals. The truth is that the most murderous regimes in human history, starting in 1790, have been secular ones.

      June 23, 2012 at 9:45 am |
  10. Mark Taylor

    A spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which with with our modest powers must feel humble...

    June 23, 2012 at 8:04 am |
    • Colin

      Of course Mark, you could add, "based on the Iron Age Palestinian mythology I still believe"

      June 23, 2012 at 8:09 am |
    • Mark Taylor

      That quote is Albert Einstein's by the way. Prominent Iron Age thinker.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:10 am |
    • Colin

      Come on Mark, please research facts before stating them. In point of fact, Einstein was a complete atheist. I know he admired Spinoza and brandied the word “god” around as a metaphor for the numinous, but he certainly did not believe in the notions of life after death or a god that in any way worried itself with human beings.

      Indeed, he referred to this as “the god of the naïve man.” For example, in his 1954 letter to the Physicist Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote,

      "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

      June 23, 2012 at 8:13 am |
    • Mark Taylor

      We are 10,000 miles from the Bible here. Fact is, Einstein used references to God all over the place in his writing. Nobody mentioned any Bible.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:15 am |
    • Colin

      Yes Mark, Einstein does mention god quite a bit:

      "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

      "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

      "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

      "I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body

      June 23, 2012 at 8:18 am |
    • Iion C.

      @Colin

      It wasn't about whether Einstein was an atheist or not. It's about you, reffering einstein's statement as " Iron Age Palestinian mythology". Actually, it was you who (unwarily) implied that Einstein was an atheist by saying so. Hence, you've just made yourself fall in a mouse trap likewise put yourself in a NO win situation.

      June 23, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
  11. Colin

    Perhaps the three greatest intellectual movements in history, which, in the cu.mulative, mark the emergence of the Western World from the Dark Ages are the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. All three are defined by their rejection of religion and religious dogma in favor of science, free thought and reason.

    If religion (as opposed to morality) was anything other than empty promises meant to sate human insecurities, would we not expect movements TOWARD greater religiosity to be predominant in World history and viewed in a positive light?

    No, this is one salmon swimming upstream against the tide of history. The Christian sky-fairy is in full retreat. Science and knowledge have flushed it out of all the unknowns it used to inhabit. Our telescopes have driven it back to the Big Bang, our paleontologists back to the origins of life on Earth. It exists now only in the few dark corners that science is yet to illuminate. The soft, uncritical mind of the believer is probably the most obstinate.

    June 23, 2012 at 8:00 am |
    • Scott

      Wow, that's rich -"...the few dark corners that science is yet to illuminate". Talk about arrogant. While science has made leaps and bounds since Galielo, Newton, Turing, etc, we are just scratching the surface. Isn't one the tenents of science questioning the answers?

      June 23, 2012 at 8:17 am |
    • Mirosal

      Yes. Science IS about questioning the answers. That's why religion hates it so. Science is about finding the answers and verifying them to make sure they are correct. Religion is all about "answers" that you may NEVER question.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • ReasonableQuest

      Kind or ironic when people who think the universe was designed for the sole purpose of God planning to have a relationship with them accuse people of being arrogant because they claim science is a better way to understand the natural world.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:30 am |
    • Colin

      Indeed Mirosal, was it Sagan who said "Science is a question that may never be answered, relgion is an answer that may never be questioned" ?

      June 23, 2012 at 8:30 am |
    • Mirosal

      I think it was Dr. Sagan.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:40 am |
  12. ReallySeriously

    Wow. Let's believe the bible because the bible tells us to. No circular reasoning there!

    I believe in the word of God because the word of God tells me its the word of God. Stupid Christians.

    Atheism is different. We believe in logic because it is logically. No circular reasoning at all.....wait a minute. Oh crap (Leaves to contemplate how all world views have circular reasoning)

    June 23, 2012 at 8:00 am |
  13. Reality

    Only for the eyes of Leah:

    "If ex-Catholics were counted as their own religious group, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists, according to the National Catholic Reporter."

    And once Leah reviews the reasons for the above, she too will enter the ranks of ex-Catholics.

    June 23, 2012 at 8:00 am |
  14. TommyBoy

    I question CNN's use of the adjectives "top" and "prominent" about this blogger. I've been reading blow related to religion and atheism for years and subscribe to over a dozen of them. I do not recall even following any links to her blog.

    Based on the response to her conversion, she must have had some level of popularity, but I doubt she'd fall into the "top" or "prominent" category.

    June 23, 2012 at 7:59 am |
  15. Jack

    “I had one thing that I was most certain of, which is that morality is something we have a duty to” Yeah, and Catholicism is clearly the best way to ensure morality. Just ask the Catholic pedophile priests (and all the other Catholic criminals out there). What an idiot...

    June 23, 2012 at 7:56 am |
    • Scott

      Please, like some atheists have never abused children either...sorry but your pathetic attempt to link all Catholic priests with the 7urds that are present in every organization is without merit.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:04 am |
    • Reality

      Why did today's pope, prelates, preachers and rabbis, so focused on society's se-xual sins, lose sight of clerical se-xual sins?

      FEAR, SHAME and GUILT and COVER IT ALL UP!!!

      Obviously ordination in any religion is not assurance of good behavior !!!!!

      Neither is coronation!!! e.g. Henry VIII, King David.

      Neither is marriage as 50% of those men convicted of pedophilia are married.

      Neither is being elected president of the USA!! e.g. Billy "I did not have se-x with that girl" Clinton, John "Marilyn Monroe" Kennedy".

      Neither is possessing super athletic skill!!! e.g. Tiger "I am so sorry for getting caught" Woods.

      Neither is being an atheist or pagan or football coach since pedophilia is present in all walks of life.

      If someone is guilty of a crime in this litany of "neithers" they should or should have been penalized as the law dictates to include jail terms for pedophiliacs (priests, rabbis, evangelicals, boy scout leaders, married men/women, football coaches), divorce for adultery (Clinton, Kennedy, Woods), jail terms for obstruction of justice (Clinton, Cardinal Law) or child endangerment (Lynn) and the death penalty or life in prison for murder ("Kings David and Henry VIII).

      June 23, 2012 at 8:05 am |
    • TruthPrevails :-)

      Scott: Pedophilia exists everywhere regardless of belief or disbelief, the difference is that the catholic church protects the pedophiles from criminal prosecution, all other peds if caught will face the court system.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • Scott

      Thank you Reality for pointing out that the vermin known as pedophiles are in all walks of life. The Catholic church should definetly answer for any coverups, but contrary to Jack's claim the majority of Priests are not pedophiles. That's as dumb as saying no one should be an atheist because Stalin was an atheist.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:21 am |
  16. Gary

    Much interest in a subject that we will all find the truth in the end. Then there will be no discussion.

    June 23, 2012 at 7:55 am |
  17. Notea4me

    She can't convert if she doesn't accept all their dogma. BTW, I think she was a fake athiest anyway.

    June 23, 2012 at 7:53 am |
    • Scott

      No True Scotsman! No True Scotsman! No True Scotsman! This time it actually applies.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:05 am |
  18. John of Indiana

    OK, so when a Christian renounces their belief in the faerie tale, the apologists are quick to rise up and claim "well, he was never a RealChristian(tm) in the FIRST place!".

    So by the same token, can we claim that Leah was never a real Atheist?

    It's sad that she thinks the only place to find morality is in a book just chock full of immoral acts.

    June 23, 2012 at 7:49 am |
    • Kerry

      John, you just said everything I was going to. Though I never read her blog, it sounds to me like she was more of an agnostic. And to build your faith on the idea that morality is universal and something we are duty bound to the point where you believe that there is a higher power named god seems like a big jump.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:05 am |
  19. norm

    Merica is wrong. Libresco is switching to the side the old one-eyed trouser worm is on.

    June 23, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • John of Indiana

      Yeah, after a particularly heavy evening of screaming "OH GAWD!" her BF told her "See? You really DO believe!"

      June 23, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • xnay

      Back to the video games

      June 23, 2012 at 7:58 am |
  20. Colin

    Can a Christian please help me? I am having trouble distinguishing the third example of circular reasoning from the first two. Perhaps you can explain the difference.

    “I believe Obama is a great man because his biography says so, and the reason I believe his biography is that it is about Obama, who is a great man.”

    “I believe David Koresh was a wise and great prophet because the Branch Davidians wrote a book saying he is. I believe that book because it was inspired by David Koresh, a wise and great prophet.”

    “I believe God exists because it says so in the Bible. I believe the Bible because it is the inspired word of God.”

    June 23, 2012 at 7:43 am |
    • norm

      You have arrived at the very heart of christian insanity. This is why they need faith. If the premise weren't completely idiotic they wouldn't need faith in order to accept it!

      June 23, 2012 at 7:52 am |
    • stlouis2626

      Your 3rd example is not something a Catholic would say. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

      “I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church.” —St. Augustine (Contra Epis. Manich., Fund., n. 6)

      June 23, 2012 at 8:01 am |
    • Brian

      Except for the fact that belief in God isn't dependent on the Bible or the Torah or the Koran. These contain the words of the prophets and the word of God as related through the prophets. Other than a children's nursery rhyme, no one goes around saying God is great because the Bible says so.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:02 am |
    • drwn45

      That pretty much sums it up for me. Thanks!

      June 23, 2012 at 8:04 am |
    • Mirosal

      The "holy spirit" had nothing to do with compiling the bible. It was done at the Council of Nicea, under direction of the Emperor. Written by men, put together by men, to rule over other men. That's the purpose of your bible.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:17 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
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.