By Dan Gilgoff and Dan Merica, CNN
(CNN) – An atheist group that raised a pair of billboards taking aim at the presidential candidates’ religion at the site of next month’s Democratic National Convention has pulled the signs after what the group called a “large volume of threats.”
The billboards, sponsored by American Atheists, took aim at Mormonism and Christianity and went up this month in Charlotte, North Carolina, which will play host to the Democratic convention.
Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and President Barack Obama is also a Christian.
The billboard targeting Christianity featured an image of Jesus Christ on toast and this description of the faith: "Sadistic God; Useless Savior, 30,000+ Versions of ‘Truth,’ Promotes Hates, Calls it ‘Love.’ ”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
The billboard targeting Mormonism lambasted – and, Mormons would say, distorted – specific Mormon doctrines: "God is a Space Alien, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry.”
The Mormon billboard featured a man in white underwear, a reference to special Mormon garments.
American Atheists said the billboards provoked a “large volume of threats” by phone and e-mail and that the group reported the threats to police.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
“It is with regret that we tell our members and all of those who treasure free speech and the separation of religion and government that American Atheists and Adams Outdoor Advertising have mutually agreed to remove the billboards immediately,” Amanda Knief, American Atheists’ managing director, said in a statement last week.
“No subject, no idea should be above scrutiny – and this includes religion in all forms,” Knief said. “We are saddened that by choosing to express our rights as atheists through questioning the religious beliefs of the men who want to be our president that our fellow citizens have responded with vitriol, threats and hate speech against our staff, volunteers and Adams Outdoor Advertising.”
American Atheists had wanted to put the anti-Mormon billboard in Tampa, Florida, to coincide with this week's Republican National Convention.
When no billboard company in the city would lease the group space for such a sign, American Atheists President David Silverman said the organization decided to focus solely on the Democrats in Charlotte.
Ben is a closet Christian!
Guilty as charged.
Thanks for proving Atheists right violent cult freaks.
They have managed to troll like no other. Are you mad? -troll face-
I think you meant to type duck face instead of troll face. It's ok, I don't judge.
“No subject, no idea should be above scrutiny"–except Atheism, apparently. They don't beleive in their message enough to bear the threats for it.
So you believe that atheists should risk death, to practice the 1st amendment, and die for a non-belief? Interesting. Are you willing to die for your non-belief in santa?
“God, as Nietzsche puts it, is dead; and you and I, with the relentless little knives of our own intellect—psychology, history, and science—we have killed him. God is dead”.
Yes we killed him by curing the sick, by planting kidney, heart, liver, etc. in patient’s body to keep him/her alive; the patient that god had decided to kill.
We killed god with theory of “Natural Selection”, by excavating fossils, by inventing all kinds of gadgets that god did not want us to have. It began with the invention and manufacture of stone tools. Since then we constantly and steadily have been choking god to death. To me and 25% of people on Earth god is dead but unfortunately it is still breathing inside the mind of other 75%, what a pity.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. We are all dumber now for having read it.
lol Silly atheists. Didn't have the faith to go through with your b.s. eh? Chickens. BAK BAK BAGOK!!!!!!
I dont think 'faith' has anything to do with why the signs are being taken down. I think it has more to do with the death threats from psychotic religious nuts such as yourself.
And you say that based on what? Your "extraordinary" evidence?
Mr. N. No, I say it because it is not an extraordinary claim, and is supported by a good deal of evidence. This article, and others on the topic, as well as testimony, financial records, police records, and written statements of intent from potential perpetrators. It is logical to believe that the atheists took down the signs due to threats, because that is what the evidence points to. Email threats, for instance, were fowarded to the police department for investigation.
@MrN Based of the comments from the Atheist group that said they received threats. Or did you miss that part?
No "Mr. N.....he's basing it on the fact that the person he responded to used the phrase "silly Atheists", and that the creators of those billboards received death-threats from folks claiming to be affiliated with those particular religions...
The assumption he's making is most likely pretty accurate...
Did none of that make any sense to you?
Ben, it could be they were concerned about the employees at the sign company, probably not atheists and probably getting death threats from the Jesus death machine of non-Christian followers, who think they are saved, do any horrible thing, and be forgiven. So you premeditate, then you loose it and kill someone, Jesus will fix the mess and you don't loose your parking space in heaven.
What would Jesus do? Kill the MFs, right?
I'm taking about Ben's assertion that the parent poster is a psychotic religious nut. Is Ben's "extraordinary evidence" so powerful that he can make psychological diagnosis over the Internet?
Two words for you. Selma, Alabama. If you have the strength of your convictions, then threats, beatings, church burnings and even lynchings will not stop you from expressing what you believe to be right.
Mr. N. Generally when people call others 'chicken' and make 'BOK BOK BOK' statements following their decision to take a sign down to avoid physical harm, and harm to others, you are dealing with a person who might just be a 'psycho'. However, I was using the term tongue and cheek. Maybe you need to lighten up a tad bit, and actually spend your time thinking about why you get so defensive over fairy tales.
60 million unborn children murdered since 1973 in the U.S. alone makes the violence of God in the old testament look like a cake walk. Oh, atheists.org, continue to preach to your own choir!
Christy,...that's just plain dumb, coinsidering that God has already pretty much won the whole "let's see who can kill more babies" game.... God is responsible for the spontaneous deaths of 35% to 50% of ALL first trimester human embryos that miscarry... Most abortions occur LONG before God decides to step in, much later, and "off" the rest of the ones that women actually WANT to give birth to,... but don't get to....
If it's God's will that babies shouldn't be killed in the womb, God has apparently decided that those aren't really babies until about the second trimester or so....considering how many he slaughters himself before then...
lordnimrond....and God gives and takes life. We arent chartered to do so according to the commandments. Oh how easily you non believers get stumped on scriptures, just to turn it around & blame it on the believer. God gave you life and one day he'll take it....whether or not you're ready. It's ny his grace alone that you wake up each morning.
And the count died due to other stupid human reasons such as religion (as a grown up human species).
How many has God killed through miscarriages since Adam and Eve?
Doesnt matter.... people, die... anyway. You will too, now, what was your point?.
"God gave you life and one day he'll take it....whether or not you're ready."
About as frightening as a child telling his parents that Santa won't give them any presents. Everyone dies. There's nothing mystical about that. If you think that the pattern of birth and death is part of a larger "plan," well, it's a pretty arbitrary plan.
I don't buy into any of the current or past religious teachings or beliefs. But I don't presume to know with absolute certainly that there is nothing beyond the material world. One can make a good argument that humans, or life in general, are an accidental, tiny, fluke occurence in a vast universe. But one can also argue that without you here to observe, the universe would not exist at all.
You clearly do not understand what you speak of. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you are the one that must provide extraordinary evidence. You talk about the material world, as if something magic exists outside it. Where is your evidence this alternate reality exists? Also, the 'science' you mention in your post, reads like you have less than a 4th grade education.
The only thing I claimed is that there are still a lot of unknowns yet to be learned. Nothing about any alternate reality. "Reality" is only real if there is someone there to experience it.
Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Isn't evidence simply evidence? Evidence is evidence is evidence. It's a basic principle upon which the scientific method is based. You fill your mouth, err, keyboard with concepts well beyond your level of education or comprehension, and you have the gall to criticize someone else? It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
"One can also argue that without you here to observe, the universe would not exist at all..."
Certainly "one" can,...but then, "one" would be totally off their rocker, since the universe was doing quite well existing on its own long before "you" or "me" or ANYONE was around to "observe" it....
A scientific observation is possible only if there is some kind of signal emitted, such as a light wave, that can be detected by an instrument. Or if a signal is emitted which is then bounced back and detected by an instrument (and which, of course, can affect the observation itself). If a phenomenon occurs but does not generate an observable signal, then it cannot be detected, until such time that a better instrument can be made.
Ever heard of Rationalism or Epistemological Pragmatism? Even Epiricists don't dare make such claims with the certainty that you have. Care to enlighten us on why you think you are so right? What is your epistemological outlook?
jdoe, you spoke of a 'non material reality'. That is an extraordinary claim. Do you have evidence to support it?
Sorry "jdoe",...but "not able to be detected" is in no way the same as "not existing",...I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the whole "if no one is around to observe it, the universe wouldn't exist" thing...
First of all,...please explain what "Epiricists" are Mr. N.....
Mr. N. I do not believe you understand either science or philosophy, so I may have gone a tad bit over your head. However, again, no. Evidence is not evidence is not evidence. A persons testimony under the influence of LSD is evidence of an event occurring. Just not particulary good/reliable evidence. Was that too complicated for you? All ow me to continue. The existence of a 'god', a magical being in the sky is quite the bold claim. Even more so than a person on LSD claiming to talk to trees (at least we know trees exist, get it?) You would have to provide a TON of evidence for this god creature. Thus far, there is literally none.
They are usually people with the cranial capacity to understand the written word, even when misspelled.
lordnimrond: I don't have a good, ready answer. I'm hypothesizing that, however vast and old the universe is, it depends somewhat on you, the observer, to be here and say how vast and old it is.
Don't try to avoid by point. Aren't many scientific principles based on the scantest of evidence? Aren't many theories changed or adjusted based on the scantest of evidence. I asked you a very direct question. You claim that the burden of proof is on the parent poster, but this is YOUR burden of proof: What do you mean by "extraordinary" evidence, and more importantly, why is it required.
And by the way, Mr. N,...just because pragmatists believe that philosophy should take the methods and insights of modern science into account, doesn't mean that, as jdoe suggested, the universe wouldn't exist WITHOUT the observation of "modern man/science".... I believe it's QUITE safe to say that if a meteor blasted our planet into tiny peices tomorrow, the universe would continue to exist...
jdoe didn't say that, lordnimrod. What is it now? Is your problem deeper than a failure to understand simple misspelled words? Do you also have reading comprehension issues?
Mr. N wrote....."lordnimrod,.....They are usually people with the cranial capacity to understand the written word, even when misspelled."....
Touche! Or in your case, based on the general timbre of many of your comments,...I should say "d o u c h e"...
lordnimrond: I think we caught up in semantics. I never claim to know of a "non-material" reality. I simply don't just buy into the idea of some, not all, atheists that "this is it".
Aww, how cute! An insult. You're such a tiny little thing!
Now, how about stop trying to beat around the bush and answering my question? What is the source of your certainty, that certainty that has avoided countless minds better than yours and mine?
Mr. N: No, scientific theories are not based on scant evidence. Do you know what a scientific theory is? I would wager the answer to that question is 'no'. You see, theories describe observed facts. Evolution is an observed fact, Darwins theory explains that how and why. What is your level of education, if I may ask? You speak as if you have never taken even a high school level biology class. I also already explained what extraordinary evidence means, but since I am dealing with a rather simple mind, I'll say it means 'an abundance of evidence'. Regarding god, there is none. Also, please Google 'burden of proof'. You are using the term incorrectly. The buren of proof falls on those making a positive claim, such as 'god exists'. Maybe take a philosophy class or two if you ever graduate high school :)
Mr. N.... What jdoe said, exactly,...was "But one can also argue that without you here to observe, the universe would not exist at all."...
When I countered that attempted "logic",...it was YOU that indicated I should reference Rationalism or Epistemological Pragmatism.... And it is the pragmatists themselves who define their opinions with the idea that philosophy (apparently ANY philosophy, including jdoe's) should take the methods and insights of modern science into account...
All of that's fine and dandy,...but unless there was some other point you were personally, desperately trying to make concerning that particular construct of Epistemological Pragmatism as it related to jdoe's "logic", then I stand by my original point that the the universe does not require our observation of it to exist...
Do you care to expound?
So there you are, again, avoiding the question and then slipping into ad hominems. My level of education is not relevant. Your avoidance of my question, however, is very relevant, and telling. I asked why is "extraordinary" evidence necessary? Why does the existence of God or whatever other postulate with profound implications, require any more evidence than, say, a theory about why birds weave a certain type of nest? Or is the only true thing relevant to you saving face by insulting me?
Ever heard of begging the question? Do you want ME to expound on that, too?
I'm hypothesizing that, since much scientific knowledge is based on observation, the existence of life forms that can observe the universe may not necessarily be a total fluke.
jdoe said..."lordnimrond: I think we caught up in semantics. I never claim to know of a "non-material" reality. I simply don't just buy into the idea of some, not all, atheists that "this is it"...."
And I utterly appreciate that sentiment,...I truly do... I think the only thing that caused your train of thought to fall apart, at least in my mind, as I attempted to understand it, was the strange leap of logic I assumed you must have made when you made the statement concerning the universe's very existence actually depending on observation... Though there is plenty of quatum evidence supporting the idea that the very physical rules by which the universe actually operates can seem to change at a quantum level merely due to whether it's being observed or not, I have never seen any evidence supporting a theory that the unverse's existance would be in jeopardy if observers vanished...
This was my only point.... A point that the trollish Mr. N decided to use as a launching point for his attempts at attention-seeking....
I don't want to sound condescending, but you have a lot to learn, but so do the rest of us. The difference is that you want to learn it. We should take a cue from you, though, in that questioning even what we believe we are most certain of. I'm unsure if you're religious, agnostic, or atheist for that matter, I salute you.
These other clowns that fancy themselves "intellectual" are merely just fanatics of a different kind. They give us an example too, of what not to be like. I'm bored with them. Take care.
lordnimrond: I may have exaggerated somewhat to make a point. I simply find it interesting that, out of the universe, the process of evolution would lead to increasingly complex life forms that could make obversations about the universe itself. The impetus for evolution itself, why would there be one? It is as if the universe is increasingly becoming "intelligent" (I don't like to use that term), and humans are a part of that process.
Mr N. whined....."lordnimrod,...Ever heard of begging the question? Do you want ME to expound on that, too?"
Feel free Mr. D o u c h e y t r o l l,...enlighten us all on your keen observations... While your at it,...observe how to actually spell the handle I've chosen to use for myself...(at which point I'll stop calling you a D o u c h e y t r o l l)... Also,...maybe attempt to actually address some of the things I've said to you.... Can you handle that,...or are you now left with nothing but snarky one-liners?
Mr. N: Clearly I do not understand your question. Can you perhaps ask it in a different manner? As far as I can tell, I answered it thoroughly. What did I miss exactly? I am sorry you are offended by me calling out your rather obvious lack of education. Should I pretend we are on equal footing, or something along those lines? I didn't mean to offend.
Oh, I see now Mr. N. You are asking the rather childish and intellectual inept question "why do some things require more evidence than others". I don't see how you could honestly ask that, but then again...nothing you say could shock me at this point. Let us pretend that I made the claim "I have a quarter in my pocket". DO you think that would be a hard claim to believe? I'm guessing no. You see, having a quarter in my pocket is something that happens quite a lot. The idea that I have one now is far from a long-shot. The evidence required to prove it, would not be much. Maybe I could take a picture and mail it to you. The claim that there is an all powerfull man in the sky, however. Is quite the claim! Can you show me a picture of a god in your pocket? Or a picture of any god at all? No. It's very simple. The more far fetched a claim, the more evidence is required to substantiate it. Think about the lockness monster. Do you think it is as likely that the lockness monster exists, than I have a quarter in my pocket?
As the universe becomes increasingly disordered (entropy, if you will), there seems to be a counterforce, in the form of life forms and evolution, that is becoming increasingly "ordered". And thousands or millions of years from now, who knows what this increasing "intelligence" would be like, and how it is might change the course of the universe itself. This is simply a thought experiment, and I'll leave it at that.
jdoe wrote...."lordnimrond: I may have exaggerated somewhat to make a point. I simply find it interesting that, out of the universe, the process of evolution would lead to increasingly complex life forms that could make observations about the universe itself. The impetus for evolution itself, why would there be one? It is as if the universe is increasingly becoming "intelligent" (I don't like to use that term), and humans are a part of that process."....
This line of thought I don't mind at all,...believe me... I think it's actually quite healthy to consider such things within reason... Deepak Chopra had an interesting comment to make on the matter of there being an "impetus for evolution itself" in a discussion I saw pertaining to whether or not it was necessary to believe in a "Devil" if once chose to believe in a god of some kind... The discussion was an interesting one full of VERY heated debate (since, of the two groups discussing it,...you had minds like Chopra on one side, and the other side was filled with specifically Judea-Christian z e a l o t s who demanded that, to believe in God one MUST believe in a devil..)... But the most interesting part of it was where Chopra discussed his personal philosophy that the Universe is constrained by two forces;...Evolution (from both a spiritual as well as a physical stand-point) and Entropy (likewise both physical and spiritual)...
He posited that spiritual and physical Evolution (not Darwin's theory, but the general idea that everything in the Universe is always in the process of "attempting to perfect itself" essentially, the forward momentum/energy devoted to always becoming a better (fill in the blank), whether it's alive or not... This positive momentum is essentially "God",...the Supreme Being, the "One Great Power",...whatever you wish to call it... This "positive energy and momentum" is something that all living things have the capacity to relate to (even at a primal, single-cell level), and, as a result, we humans (being microcosms of that vast macrocosm as well) relate to this force as "God"....
If there IS another side of this coin it is the other force he mentioned; Entropy... Entropy, however, is what happens in those areas of the universe as the positive energy gives way and moves on, leaving behind a kind of "reverse energy",...which Chopra referred to as "Heat Death".... Literally, the "winding down" of the universe in such a way that the cohesive nature that binds things together as functioning systems begins to break down and fail... This process is something we DON'T relate to in a positive way,...since it relates to our own deaths as well (from the standpoint of us as functional systems/individuals) and though we might attempt to personify this force as "evil",...there really is no need to, since it doesn't have any real sentience, since it is, in fact, the absence of a functional sentient system...
Chopra believed that, though these forces are essentially balanced in such a way that the power of Evolution is always one step ahead of Entropy, our universe exists, continues to exist, and will keep existing as long as the that "race" continues to be won, and the universe as a whole keeps becoming "better" at creating functional systems...
lordnimrond: I've heard of Chopra, but never actually read anything from him. It appears that my line of thinking is quite similar to his. I will look him up.
lordnimrond: Thanks for the info on Chopra. This has been quite a health discussion, the bickering aside. Goodnight everyone.
Excellent jdoe,...I'm betting you'll truly enjoy many of the things Deepak Chopra says (don't let the fact that he sounds like King Julien from the Madagascar movies throw you off)...
Also,..please let me say that I'm sorry of my earliest comment to you was in any way offensive, where I essentially stated that I felt the idea that the universe not existing without observers was an "off the rocker" argument.... My goal was not to offend, but to make it clear that this particular leap of logic sounded kinda crazy to me personally.... But only in the same way that, to me,...saying that "I have seen a ghost" ...(for instance,...I have),...doesn't sound as crazy to most people as "I have seen the ghost of Elvis"....
You mentioned that you may have exagerated a bit with that argument,...and that's probably why it struck me in that way...
Again,...I'm sorry if my wording was offensive to you...
lordnimrond: I'm not offended at all. I think everyone on this thread think along the same line, notwithstanding the bickering. Have a great evening. Maybe we'll come across each other again.
jdoe,..it would be a pleasure, sir....
To Mr. N and Ben, sorry if I didn't address you directly. I do appreciate your discussion. Take care.
Ridiculous.... atheists have become as fundamentalist as the most fundy of zealots in any other religion. What has happened to their pride? Let them have their signs. They don't intimidate me and anyone who believes their tripe deserves it.
Apparently, it's the religious people who are doing the intimidating.
according to the article, the atheists are the ones getting attacked. It is not 'fundamentalism' that would cause you to put a sign up criticizing religion, it is freedom and liberty which we are supposed to have in this county, that allows us.
I disagree. It is atheist evangelism, pure and simple.
@the warrioress, Why should you care what anyone else believes about your religion? If it's solid, you should have no worries and shouldn't need to feel threatened. Remember atheists are only about 7% of the US population. We have yet to get 1 atheist leader as president or a congress member or in the Senate.
I personally find it silly that mormons believe in magic underwear and christians believe that a magical being in space created the universe... I don't however feel the least bit threatened by people's imaginations. When I see the "god" billboard on the highway, I don't worry about the christians coming for me. I just think it's funny. Maybe you can learn to laugh too.
It is getting close the more athiesm and the less people searching for the meaning of their existence the closer it is all signs of the bible are being filled there is just one more that needs to be fullfilled closer than you think remember Noah and what he did and you will have an example about the time we live in.
Billboards are a GREAT way to suddenly change the minds of a thousands-of-years old belief system. Or even one half that age." A lot of people tend to suddenly ditch their belief system after reading a well-designed billboard..." said no historian ever. Listen, if you belief in fairy tales with burning bushes, books that speak, arcs and floods, Adam & Eve etc etc etc – that's you're business. If you don't belief it, congratulations... you have a brain and thirst for rationale however the buck stops there when you think anything you say hasn't been said 1000 times before. People will always choose to belief what is within in their capacity to justify their actions and feel like they aren't as useless as they really are and can't admit to – hence why they need a higher power.
argh – BELIEVE... with a V. :P
Ummm Al... psssst, its the 21st century.
Media = funny. Thanks man.
Religion is retarded in the true sense of the word. If that offends the religious so be it. Especially Islam and Catholicism. Grow up and come into the 20th century, or if you don't want to at least let your children.
Instead of a neutral sign explaining their thinking, this group chose a confrontional, and yes, dogmatic way to present their viewpoint. Not a good way to win people over.
Try looking up 'dogma'.
If the Government is thinking putting pictures of half dead people or their rotted insides on my cigarette packs then there is not a thing wrong with that billboard.
If the Government is thinking of putting pictures of half dead people or their rotted insides on my cigarette packs then there is not a thing wrong with that billboard.
The fact is, there are simply things that we don't know and cannot know with our present level of knowledge. So to claim that "there's nothing out there" is just as dogmatic as any religion.
I'm an Atheist and I think this group is going about everything wrong. One of the nice things about being non-religious, or an atheist, is that you don't bother people! I accepted long ago that knowing truths others cannot comprehend still doesn't give me a right to throw it in your face. I don't like it when the Christians, or the Mormons, or the Jehova's Witnesses, or what have you come banging on my door at odd hours, I have an extreme dislike for those gigantic "Jesus Christ is not a Swear Word" Semi truck trailers, and I sure as heck don't like crosses on top of mountains, but what I like even less is seeing Atheists do the exact same darn thing that religions do- evangelize. This doesn't need to be an 'us vs them' situation, as the truth will eventually take over myth with or without all the shenanigans. Give it time, humanity DOES evolve, and just relaaaaaaax!
We certainly don not need atheists to "evangelize". What we need is cult de-programmers to save these poor people from all that nonsense.
I am suprised you would mention JW's in your comment cause everything you mentioned besides knocking on your door they do not do they do believe in crosses either because its Idol worship. One thing you may be concerned with is think about this if your house was burning down wouldn't you want someone to warn you about it to save your life. That is the same exact thing JW's are doing listen to them they hold more wisdom then you could possibly imagine.
I meant don't instead of do stupid keyboard.
I just noticed that you capitalized the term atheist (after you write I am....). This would imply that you regard atheism as a legitimate recognized group. Like say, something like a religion. So you must belong to the Atheism is just another Christian group with it's own understanding of the scriptures club. I'm an atheist. (notice no formal acknowledgement of a group) and know that religion is plain nonsense, as far as a creator being calling all the shots. You put a capitol on the word atheist then you are another believer in religion. Just under another guise.
Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack, Jack. I hope.....aw forget it. You people are too righteous to speak sense to.
Took down your billboards!!!!!!
"God is a Space Alien, Baptizes Dead People.” this part is correct ...the rest I easily assume goes with it.
Most atheists or agnostics arrive at their decision on their own after much research and a lot of thought, often against their family's belief and wishes. The vast majority don't need to join any organization to validate their thinking.
Paganism can be added to that list.
Sigh. The sign is pretty tacky. I'm sure it was fun for the AA to put together. However, surely they could have come up with something to spark actual discussion and debate. Instead, they came up with what amounts to a pair of raised middle fingers directed toward anyone who disagrees.
That may be true, but it doesn't say much for this country's faithful that they couldn't restrain from threatening physical violence
By "this country's faithful" do you mean a few angry unbalanced people, or are you referring as well to the hundreds of millions of "faithful" Americans who wouldn't send death threats?
It sounds from the article as though there were more than a few threats, in fact there were enough that the billboard had to be taken down. I don't mean to impugn all people of faith, but you can understand why I'm distrustful of an idea that would prompt people to physical threats.
“large volume of threats.” why is that not shocking? because they are in fear ...always. You don't find true intelligence sitting in a pew, Jesus and all other enlightened souls didn't... they tell you to change and don't be a part of Mankind's plan, swim upstream while others are always going downstream towards human death. Ta Eso'
LOL. Radical athiests & monotheists all make me chuckle with thier I'm right – you're wrong squabbles. As long as there is no violence – argue away. But think about how silly & petty all this intolerance is. Death is the equalizer and it happens to everything that is flesh. What difference will it make to you then what the other person has thought to be true for them? You will either be in your heaven/hell, or oblivious to anything, or recycled into another existence.
You used the 'flesh' terminology. D/a/m/n Jesus lover. Thought you could sneak it by did you?
I am not Christian, lol. I am Pagan. And we all are made of flesh & bone – an organic materiasl. Hate much?
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.