home
RSS
My Take: The danger of calling behavior ‘biblical’
The author argues that there are many meanings of the adjective 'biblical.'
November 17th, 2012
10:00 PM ET

My Take: The danger of calling behavior ‘biblical’

Editor's Note: Rachel Held Evans is a popular blogger from Dayton, Tennessee, and author of “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.”

By Rachel Held Evans, Special to CNN

On "The Daily Show" recently, Jon Stewart grilled Mike Huckabee about a TV ad in which Huckabee urged voters to support “biblical values” at the voting box.

When Huckabee said that he supported the “biblical model of marriage,” Stewart shot back that “the biblical model of marriage is polygamy.”

And there’s a big problem, Stewart went on, with reducing “biblical values” to one or two social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring issues such as poverty and immigration reform.

It may come as some surprise that as an evangelical Christian, I cheered Stewart on from my living room couch.

As someone who loves the Bible and believes it to be the inspired word of God, I hate seeing it reduced to an adjective like Huckabee did. I hate seeing my sacred text flattened out, edited down and used as a prop to support a select few political positions and platforms.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

And yet evangelicals have grown so accustomed to talking about the Bible this way that we hardly realize we’re doing it anymore. We talk about “biblical families,” “biblical marriage,” “biblical economics,” “biblical politics,” “biblical values,” “biblical stewardship,” “biblical voting,” “biblical manhood,” “biblical womanhood,” even “biblical dating” to create the impression that the Bible has just one thing to say on each of these topics - that it offers a single prescriptive formula for how people of faith ought to respond to them.

But the Bible is not a position paper. The Bible is an ancient collection of letters, laws, poetry, proverbs, histories, prophecies, philosophy and stories spanning multiple genres and assembled over thousands of years in cultures very different from our own.

When we turn the Bible into an adjective and stick it in front of another loaded word, we tend to ignore or downplay the parts of the Bible that don’t quite fit our preferences and presuppositions. In an attempt to simplify, we force the Bible’s cacophony of voices into a single tone and turn a complicated, beautiful, and diverse holy text into a list of bullet points we can put in a manifesto or creed. More often than not, we end up more committed to what we want the Bible to say than what it actually says.

Nowhere is this more evident than in conversations surrounding “biblical womanhood.”

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Growing up in the Bible Belt, I received a lot of mixed messages about the appropriate roles of women in the home, the church and society, each punctuated with the claim that this or that lifestyle represented true “biblical womanhood.”

In my faith community, popular women pastors such as Joyce Meyer were considered unbiblical for preaching from the pulpit in violation of the apostle Paul's restriction in 1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"), while Amish women were considered legalistic for covering their heads in compliance with his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5 ("Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head").

Pastors told wives to submit to their husbands as the apostle Peter instructed in 1 Peter 3:1, but rarely told them to avoid wearing nice jewelry as the apostle instructs them just one sentence later in 1 Peter 3:3. Despite the fact that being single was praised by both Jesus and Paul, I learned early on that marriage and motherhood were my highest callings, and that Proverbs 31 required I keep a home as tidy as June Cleaver's.

Opinion: What all those Jesus jokes tell us

This didn’t really trouble me until adulthood, when I found myself in a childless egalitarian marriage with a blossoming career and an interest in church leadership and biblical studies. As I wrestled with what it meant to be a woman of faith, I realized that, despite insistent claims that we don’t “pick and choose” from the Bible, any claim to a “biblical” lifestyle requires some serious selectivity.

After all, technically speaking, it is “biblical” for a woman to be sold by her father to pay off debt, “biblical” for a woman to be required to marry her rapist, “biblical” for her to be one of many wives.

So why are some Bible passages lifted out and declared “biblical,” while others are explained away or simply ignored? Does the Bible really present a single prescriptive lifestyle for all women?

These were the questions that inspired me to take a page from A.J. Jacobs, author of "The Year of Living Biblically", and try true biblical womanhood on for size—literally, no “picking and choosing."

This meant, among other things, growing out my hair, making my own clothes, covering my head whenever I prayed, abstaining from gossip, remaining silent in church (unless I was “prophesying,” of course), calling my husband "master,” even camping out in my front yard during my period to observe the Levitical purity laws that rendered me unclean.

During my yearlong experiment, I interviewed a variety of women practicing biblical womanhood in different ways — an Orthodox Jew, an Amish housewife, even a polygamist family - and I combed through every commentary I could find, reexamining the stories of biblical women such as Deborah, Ruth, Hagar, Tamar, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla and Junia.

My goal was to playfully challenge this idea that the Bible prescribes a single lifestyle for how to be a woman of faith, and in so doing, playfully challenge our overuse of the term “biblical.” I did this not out of disdain for Scripture, but out of love for it, out of respect for the fact that interpreting and applying the Bible is a messy, imperfect and - at times - frustrating process that requires humility and grace as we wrestle the text together.

The fact of the matter is, we all pick and choose. We’re all selective in our interpretation and application of the biblical text. The better question to ask one another is why we pick and choose the way that we do, why we emphasis some passages and not others. This, I believe, will elevate the conversation so that we’re using the Bible, not as a blunt weapon, but as a starting point for dialogue.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Rachel Held Evans.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Opinion

soundoff (4,657 Responses)
  1. KRHODES

    One just has to wonder where CNN gets these liberal ideologues who do not speak for the vast majority of evangelical Christian and many Christians for that matter. Just come right on out and state the obvious...you do not like Christianity as it is historically and biblically defined and are trying to somehow make these folks out to be Christian.

    The author stated that "When Huckabee said that he supported the “biblical model of marriage,” Stewart shot back that “the biblical model of marriage is polygamy.”

    And there’s a big problem, Stewart went on, with reducing “biblical values” to one or two social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring issues such as poverty and immigration reform.

    It may come as some surprise that as an evangelical Christian, I cheered Stewart on from my living room couch."

    She obviously does not understand her own faith or she would have known what was wrong with Stewart's statement. It is nothing more than his appeal to the low brow mentality of his viewers.

    November 19, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • Huebert

      What makes you as.sume that your interpretation of the bible is the only valid one?

      November 19, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      KRHODES,

      In retrospect, Godless bemoans the ungodly. For these are the choices from which commonwealth atheists do make felt upon their retrospective and habitual senses denying the goodly upon ever moving towards and upon the ways of godly intent. Many young-bucks of godlessness and the ungodliness tenders to avail themselves with the nailed doldrums' sciatica and they do abound with much societal unpleasantries toward the abaters of commonly wanton deniabilities against them, those ungodly and godless beings of smirked violaters of randomized intention-abilities meant only as austerities subversions. Their subversive deniabilities are not without compromising or so they do entail and also do weave upon the where-with-all of seasoned laments.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • chris

      KRHODES...

      "One wonders where CNN gets these...." Seriously? YOUR PEOPLE LOST THE ELCTION. No one is wondering anything other than why are you still confused? Why are you still playing the "how could this happen to us" card? Obama won b/c the majority of us who took the time and effort to vote elected him. over 100 milion of us "spoke" and we chose him. It is not a conspiracy. Also, OBAMA, NOT ROMNEY is the Christian yet all I hear are "Evangelical Christians" who are so beside themselves that the follower of Joesph Smith wasn't elceted? Is this the twilight zone? So Your god, Jesus I thought, comes before all else in your life, he guides your life...other than your politcis, their candidates and in most cases your own best intersts as well? Would Jesus have voted Romney????? I think not...

      November 19, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      KRHODES. So explain what is wrong with Stewart's statement. Plenty of biblical text supports it.

      November 19, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • MaryJ

      chris
      When you live deep in the Bible Belt, like this guy apparently does, then you lose sight of the fact that most of the country lies beyond your borders. That, and the constant preaching that they, Conservative Christians, somehow represent "traditional values" while all the time denying just how much bigotry, racism, male chauvinism, and anti-Semitism were all a part of those "values." They want to rewrite Christian history, or at least shine all of the slime off of it.

      November 19, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • KRHODES

      chris

      KRHODES...

      "One wonders where CNN gets these...." Seriously?

      Seriously...what are you talking about? I never said one word about the election...what ya been smokin?

      November 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • KRHODES

      In Santa we trust

      "KRHODES. So explain what is wrong with Stewart's statement. Plenty of biblical text supports it."

      So where are Christians commanded to take more than one wife? You say there are plenty of verses to back Stewart up so lets see them?

      November 19, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • KRHODES

      MaryJ

      chris
      When you live deep in the Bible Belt, like this guy apparently does, then you lose sight of the fact that most of the country lies beyond your borders. That, and the constant preaching that they, Conservative Christians, somehow represent "traditional values" while all the time denying just how much bigotry, racism, male chauvinism, and anti-Semitism were all a part of those "values." They want to rewrite Christian history, or at least shine all of the slime off of it."

      Can you give me some examples of bigotry, racism, male chauvinism, and anti semitism that Christians are commanded to engage in? The only anti-semites i know of are liberals. I think the examples you gave are statistically higher in those true blue liberals states as compared to the south, so not sure where you get the idea it is a southern problem. In fact...hate crimes are higher in liberals states than southern ones.

      November 19, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      KRHODES. You were the one who said he was wrong. You can't prove it. Lamech and Abraham are just two examples (that doesn't include concubines btw); there are many more. Wrong again KRHODES, but you must be used to it by now.

      November 19, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • KRHODES

      Satan is watin

      "I wish I could fvck the authors mouth."

      Prime example of a liberal atheist.

      November 19, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The only anti-semites YOU know of are "liberals"? Do tell. How many liberals do you know and what is the nature of this "anti-semitism"?

      I doubt you are acquainted with many liberals, Kruddy. I doubt you have many friends at all.

      November 19, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      KRHODES. Anti-semitic language and behavior has long been part of the christian culture, in fact look up Mel Gibson.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Handle Wrangler

      Hey, Tom, Tom,

      You might get a chuckle (or a *sigh*) out of H.S.' attempt at another "handle" yesterday. See pages 9 & 35 - it's "GetRealBeLearnSpiritualTruth"!

      November 19, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • KRHODES

      In Santa we trust

      "KRHODES. Anti-semitic language and behavior has long been part of the christian culture, in fact look up Mel Gibson.

      So mel Gibson represents Christian culture? Funny thing...anti-semitism is not supported by the Bible period. And my remark about liberal anti-semitism...it is on display everyday in the liberal media...except they call it "pro Palestinian." The way the president treats the Israeli government...it should be obvious to anyone his feelings toward them. I just wonder how long it will take the Jewish voters to figure that one out?

      November 19, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • End Religion

      krhody, the multiple wife verses have been posted over and over in this thread. Go find it if you're interested. If you're not, you should know by now to trust that non-believers know the bible better than believers.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      KRHODES. Firstly you falsely accuse the president. Secondly, if what you said were true that would not be anti-semitic more like anti-Zionist. Arabs are Semites too btw although common usage of that term does refer to Jews.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Handle: yeah, the witch has posted under the name "Jean" recently, as well. Her style is unmistakable.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      KRHODES, I was using Mel Gibson as a recent example of a more fundamental catholic sect. Much of European and US history has had strong anti-Jewish themes (Shylock reflects society's view for example) in fact it's only recently that the evangelicals have moved to a more tolerant view of Jews.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      KRHODES. I was presuming that you knew that christians blamed the jews for the crucifixion and felt that that justified poor treatment and confinement to ghettos.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • MaryJ

      KRHODES
      "The only anti-semites i know of are liberals."
      Billy Graham is a "Liberal" now, I suppose, or haven't you heard the Nixon tapes?

      November 19, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      KRHODES. I presume that a lack of response on the polygamy point is because you now know you were absolutely wrong.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • CKEN

      I would suggest that no one can adequately state an historical and biblical definition of Christianity. Christian religions live by their dogma, which by definition means they pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible. The net result is the Christian religions have obfuscated the spiritual truths hidden in the Bible as allegories often wrapped in an enigma. Various denominational and nondenominational religions need to get past the concept that the entire Bible must be taken literally. Perhaps then true spiritual growth can occur.

      November 20, 2012 at 3:15 am |
    • phyllis stein

      "The only anti-semites i know of are liberals."

      Yeah, them tree hugging, liberal nazis

      November 20, 2012 at 4:04 am |
  2. Reality

    From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

    Death's Debt is Paid in Full

    Death's debt is then and there

    Paid down by dying men;
    But it is a promise bare
    That they (or he) shall rise again.

    Al-Ma'arri- 1000 CE

    November 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Reality
      Paul was the first evangelist and knew how to get a good scam up and running.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Reality

      Ditto that with some added details:

      Christian Economics/ Greed 101:

      The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no real greed there.

      Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed? Probably!!

      Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!

      The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens/Evangelicals et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!

      An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

      "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
      Some of Paul's money gathering activities some of which resulted in buying the Gentile entry into the then mostly Jewish version of Christianity:

      November 19, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Reality
      Not much has changed, did you see in the pope's papers that old Ratzinger was back selling indulgencies, an audience wuth himself for only US $13,000, what a deal?

      November 19, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • Reality

      Dionmithjesu,

      I did not see that. Do you have a reference? Needed for my Christianity Economics/Greed 101 course notes.

      November 19, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Reality
      The reference: Secret Papers of Pope Benedict XVI by Gianlugi Nuzzi, There have been articles about the contents and revelations made in the book available only in Italian that indicate that audiences were made available for 10,000 Euro. Did not have the time to do a further search, but there is mention of this content on Wikipedia. Hope that helps.

      November 20, 2012 at 5:03 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Reality
      See my post @ 8:08 AM, Nov 20, did not come up as a reply.

      November 20, 2012 at 8:11 am |
  3. mama k

    In the U.S., we atheists owe Christian fundamentalists a debt of gratitude for just one thing – that we wound up with a secular government. Around the time of the founding, the population was even more Christian. And just like today, different kinds of Christians then were bickering with one another. But because the different Christian sects were feuding with each other then so badly, the key founders of our government (who were fairly moderate and heavily influenced by Deism) came to realize the only way they could calm things down was to establish a secular government. Just listen to James Madison's anger as he addresses the Virginia General Assembly in 1785:

    During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

    James Madison would go on to be the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution and its 1st Amendment, and to become the 4th POTUS, where he would then veto two bills that he believed would violate the separation of church and state. He would also come to oppose the long-established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom.

    Of course I joke when I say we atheists owe Christian fundamentalists a debt of gratitutde because they still haven't learned to do much other than bicker with one another – more so than with others, actually. Their conflicted religion keeps them in conflict, and that gets old. We certainly can't thank them for continually trying to push their bigotry onto everyone else.

    November 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      Just hinduism, speculation, Founding fathers figured out truth behind hinduism, corruption of truth called religions and adapted truth absolute God as their way, it was not just the bickering of hindu gentile ignorant slave Christians, but a desire to dump hinduism, racism as foundation of America.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • chris

      Here Here Mama K. I'm so sick of hearing that the founding fathers did so on their "Christian beliefs"! James Madison did not and thats not to mention Thomas Jefferson who had his own version of the bible that completely removed any notion of the divne and simply looking at Jesus as MAN who led a virtuous life, one we should all espire to. How about Founding Father Ben Franklin and his "Christian Beliefs"? In 1775 he said " "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." He also said of Jesus "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity". Please stop ignoring facts folks.... This was never meant to be a Christian Nation.

      November 19, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • End Religion

      ummm... maybe i missed something, or maybe chris missed something.
      Thanks, fundies!

      November 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Ian Johnson

      Well said. oh, and true.

      November 19, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
  4. lionlylamb

    Legalisms, of this day's timeliness, dare I say convolutes and discombobulates the suggestiveness recognitions upon physicalities of the very timid bunglings of inward inter-fractals of cosmological paradigms not fully understood by the masses and seldomly aspired upon by science abridgements being too nauseatingly complex to be meaningfully understood by laymen and much less so by the commoners who could really care less. "I am, therefore I be and henceforth I want" is all that commoners do citefully declare their needs to soley be. It is a far better thing to leave the masses under controlling influentials of many mobs then for infiltrations of bungling buffoons to unitedly lay claims to the fooleries of unmindedness's 'cir c u m vilia'.

    November 19, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • Akira

      Your first sentence was 63 words long.
      Wow.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • End Religion

      Hereby proclaimed King of the Run-On Sentence. Combine it with the word salad which comprises each sentence and he's also won King of Gibberish(TM)

      November 19, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • Ian Johnson

      I'm starting to think you are not a real person.

      November 19, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • fintastic

      @lionlambchops;................... I want one of those keyboards you're using... the one with the "spew gibbirish" button.

      December 3, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • fintastic

      Legalisms, day's 'cir c u m vilia'. Legalisms, dare I say claims timeliness. "I am, the very the very the masses and seldomly lay care I be. It is day's 'cir needs to by lay claims not fully lay cosmological paradigms to so being infiltrations upon physicalisms, day's the fore I say controlling to so better-fractals of masses the meaning to by science and discommonerstoo nauseatings of infiltrating inward inter this and hen and much less. "I am, then and discombobulates and discomplex too nauseation

      December 3, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  5. catholic engineer

    People who so much enjoy Biblical contradictions should take a good look at themselves. Being human, they think one thing in the morning and unthink it in the afternoon. Their "great power of reason" tells them to go one way, their emotions drive them the other. THey think they want something. When they get it, it doesn't satisfy them. They have impulses and addictions which they can never defeat be it a bad temper or drugs. And these people scoff at contradictions in the Bible; a collection of literature written over three millenia, by authors who never met each other to compare notes, in various places in the Middle East and around the Mediteranean, in various times.

    Apparently, the enemies of the Bible have given up on their own contradictions and so assault something even harder. Go figure.

    November 19, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • ME II

      @catholic engineer,
      Who are we to criticize? I'd agree that we humans are imperfect, sometimes incomprehensibly so. The main difference is that we don't claim to be perfect or non-contradictory, at least as far as I'm aware.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Ian Johnson

      I am not sure who you are referring to. I don't enjoy the contradictions in the bible I simply acknowledge they exist.
      It's not the contradictions that bother me the most. It's the fact that God is always killing someone with a viciousness that is rarely seen elsewhere. No discrimination here though. Men, women, children, infants. He kills people for being related to people who don't believe. And I don't enjoy this either. Just as I don't enjoy watching a CSI episode about a child killer. It turns my stomach and not just because I am a parent myself. These things do exist in your bible. Why are we made to feel guilty for pointing this out?

      November 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Wow, what a large pile of self-indulgent crap you just posted. That's a very out of character comment for you though, so is this the real CA, or is this the true you?

      November 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Madtown

      Certainly humans are imperfect, created as such. But, religious followers(all variations) seem to miss the inescapable truth that if there were only "1 true" religion that God favored, all humans would have access to it. It's as simple as that. Christianity is not the only way to God, because not all of God's human creations have access to it. Here's another truth: had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you'd follow the Muslim faith.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Huebert

      CE

      No one ever claimed that humans are perfect. However, the bible claims that it is the inspired word of god. You would think at some point god would stopped and edited for continuity.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      catholic engineer
      Should include a disclaimer on every bible. The many versions of the bible have been edited at differing times and by different editors to suit what we see fit.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • ME II

      Is it possible for a perfect god to create an imperfect being, or even to create a being that can possibly become imperfect, as such a possibility would itself be an imperfection.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • catholic engineer

      @Ian. No one enjoys the killing in the name of God. But in whose name did the american government dehumanize the women, children, and elderly of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just a few decades ago? You should realize that whatever you trust to human nature, be it religion or science, can and will be used to the detriment of humanity.
      Something else to consider: the Bible chronicles man's emerging relationship with God. Yes, there was plenty of religious bloodshed in the OT. But Jesus in the NT is about not merely love, but Radical love.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Mathew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God!"

      Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is inside you!"

      John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world!"

      1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"

      Manly made Gods in name onliness euphemisms have become cherishing sublimations not to be outdone by anothers' naming of God such as Elohim. Is it not of more-so importance to write or make small-talk toward others to 'menstruatively' condition the morals of youthfulness than to bicker and banter about as aged 'gossipers' seeking praises of others to justify their own selfishness sakes? Who therefore is to be pitied more, the one behind the podium or the audience?

      The christian word of truth being the gospels of which are now many to be had can no more be held up in righteousness sakes. To the christians; "The troubles with unfaithful trinitarians, those who belly-up to one god times three is, they read but only into it and get very little out of what they make 'go-spel-lingly' in amplifications of unblessed pleasings by the Sons of God. Their rudimentary and timid preaching in devilish tongues beatifies only the dumb-hearted relics of their christiandumbness's idiosyncratic marmoset-like redundancies. Their godly embittered moralisms are but self-centered and self-censored upon redundant principles that are remorsefully archaic in round-about cultured replicants being those old fuddy duddies who fumble ever for their next glass worth of wine! Drunk and in temperamental stupors are the emotionally fallen in christiandumbs folds becoming sciatic pragmatisms unworthy of even one toasting for, but rather against!"

      In retrospect, Godless bemoans the ungodly. For these are the choices from which commonwealth atheists do make felt upon their retrospective habitual senses denying the goodly upon ever moving towards and upon the ways of godly intent. Many young-bucks of godlessness and the ungodliness tenders to avail themselves with the nailed doldrums' sciatica and they do abound with much societal unpleasantries toward the abaters of commonly wanton deniabilities against them, those ungodly and godless beings of smirked violaters of randomized intention-abilities meant only as austerities subversions. Their subversive deniabilities are not without compromising or so they do entail and also do weave upon the where-with-all of seasoned laments.

      Likewise, the mockeries of these godless and ungodly against the goodly who do themselves believe upon godly importance the goodly ones may well live on to pass all and onto every generation's aged continuations. How else could Life Truly End and Real Living Thusly Begin? To believe or not believe for these are Life's choices. Christ Jesus came to this world to condemn it and yet did He come here to also show how tenderly are generous mercies shown upon those otherly ones being most merciful to others who did so shower mercy to be so freely given by those being most merciful! Again I do say to believe or not believe for these are Life's choices. Still yet and forever onwards many generations are to be favoringly found in many a mercies, for the mercifilled ambiences are one of our Life's greatest treasures and livings' sweetest unending rewards upon the most needy of the poorest in spirits.

      For God does never change His spiritualism and His Holy Spirit is the Great Sea of Absolute Nothingness! Always was and is and will ever be no matter what smatterings of materialized shapes do tend to seemingly clutter up His unending spiritual abundancy! It is truth that God has troubles within the fractal paradigms of inwardness's inter-cellular cosmologies as protrutions of insolent 'activists' that are sometimes revolting against the grains of our embodied sanctifications creating many unrighteous undulations of travesties not uncommonly being viewed by us celestial beings as being viral and even bacteriological in the way we understand things to be and therefore become. What was first made can never again become that which was made first for only in varying differential constructs can another thing be made to be outdone against that which was firstly made. The pillars of one's DNA, the spirals of all celestial life forms and formations bitten fomentations is where God's Sons and their given wives are taken in as residents there abouts.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • Huebert

      CE

      Luke 14 26
      If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

      Yeah, Jesus is all about love.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • catholic engineer

      @ME II The New Testament explains that humanity should strive toward perfection. Jesus is the model of genuine – perfect – humanity. God looks at Jesus and sees us, we look at Jesus and see God. Christianity gives us a direction toward which we make progress. Science speaks of progress. This doesn't work because science cannot define the ultimate good.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Osiris

      @Catholic – "the bible chronicles the emerging relationship between man and God"......really? So how is it that you have debunked all the religious doctrines that came before, during and after the one you choose to believe? Why are none of them chronicles of man's emerging relationship with their choice of god(s)?

      November 19, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • Osiris

      Jesus is the model of perfection? Then please explain why he was Baptized? Also explain why no one other than his followers wrote about him. Why his followers chose to destroy more advanced knowledge that countered their beliefs?(library of Alexandria).

      November 19, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Osiris
      In this order, DIONysus-MITHra-JESUs, my new handle, pick a mesiah.

      November 19, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Osiris

      @DionMithJesu – no...you are an assembly of false gods. There is only one true ruler; father of Horus, husband of Isis.

      November 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @catholic engineer,
      Jesus refused to help a women until she begged and compared herself to a dog asking for scraps from the table... He ignored here and his own disciples had to beg him for help too. All because she was a dirty gentile. Is this the kind of love you're promoting?

      Matthew 15:22-28

      November 19, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
    • Be not deceived

      GodFreeNow,
      If you ever find him you will humble yourself in a like manner.

      November 19, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Everything Jesus did, he did as an example to his disciples. Therefore, in order to show the need for baptism, he said to John the Baptist, "Let it be this way for now"

      November 19, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Bizarre

      Bill Deacon,

      "Everything Jesus did, he did as an example to his disciples."

      Sheesh, I wonder how many blind folks had dirt mixed with spittle rubbed in their eyes by guys following his 'example'!?

      November 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      et al,

      A scattering of variegated opulence-ended minds is upon us in these trying days and Age. Leave therefore your harshest wantings behind and never take wind of one's longings for the weightiness of one's longings will smite even the most influential. Carry away nothing and leave ever to make headway to the places inside one's being and do not keep ajar your door for many will want to enter in and should not. Your loving of this Life is for the world to have needs of and you should not heed the rumors from others as to just what is truly right. It is therefore best for mankind to simmer in their yet unfinished juvenile pottages never rationalizingly 'assaying' one's diffuse detriments, the very smallest of life's grains. As smitten breeds, our splendors reveal one's characters to be traitorous to one's analogous fold. Where then does true life really end and real living truly begin?

      For this world knows not the time nor the place for the 'sons of man' and their coming upon this world to make judgement upon the world's governance. Behold you now for the time is now upon mankind for these 'sons of man' are now placed in and upon mankind's midsts. They do see much goodness upon many lands and the one does also see much bitterness as well. These sons of but a simple minded man knows well the bitterness of social torments and much of the worldly social egress. The tears that flow from this man's sons are bitter and with much consolations gathering in their togetherness as wasted nuptials being leveraged by time's undoing stature. The angst of one man's sons is but now the two-folded spark of leavened thanksgiving and no more trickeries to be unfolded upon mankind! No more is unsoundness being one sons' beatifications while the otherly son does wastefully partake of brewed measures. As sons of loving parents, do we live on and towards finality's ends.

      Though my sights are now set my heart maintains a pleasingly maleable notion. I do so love my brother beyond the bounds of the wateriness of baptismal complacencies. My brother and I are one blood and nothing dare comes between us lest they be but friendly natured. God as my soul's judge and Christ Jesus is my publicity's defender regarding my ongoing maleable heart, I am hell-bent to be my brother's keeper foresaking the watery conditionings of religious persuasion. May men nor women scorn my lot in this Life's consortium in brotherly assets. God forbade me in time's past and did allow me the freedoms to be hung with! May the son and brother, being of one common-placed man be never-no-more be found unwilling to set things right no matter what was so done in time's passing!

      November 19, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Ian Johnson

      The argument that Jesus is in the NT and that he was for a "Radical Love" implies that he did not approve of the teachings of the OT. This is not true. He clearly states "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB). In Mark 7:10 NAB Jesus states "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" . In Matthew 5:18-19 RSV Jesus says “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” This is Jesus saying that the OT must be abided by for all time. How is Jesus not guilty by association with the OT. He doesn't even try. Just read it yourself. It's not my book. It's yours. You seem to hide from the words that make up the sentences that you don't like. And you're not alone!

      November 19, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
    • Lisa

      Catholic
      I've heard from several Christian friends that they feel sympathy for gays wanting to get married, but they feel compelled to follow what they think the Bible says anyway. Isn't that a similar contradiction between "empathy" and "legalism" that Jesus pinned against the Pharisees? Aren't very conservative Christians just being as legalistic as the Pharisees that Jesus rebuked?

      November 19, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Is God to be made a mockery by those who tend to instill anti-leveraged pragmatisms? Are we to believe in the godless and the ungodly who care little about the piecemeal subjectives' ordinates?

      Jesus, was the very first of many immeasurable 'elemental beings' and was in the Beginning an elemental king of all the elemental Gods. Jesus, in His cunning, did thru Chaos' manueverings, established the gravimetrical waves for the elementals to gather in broods thusly was formed the beginnings of celestial nebulas.

      As time did force the nebulas to progressively surround the gravimetric oscillations where from did come about galactic formations of the elementals' soundness. As systems of photonic elementals, the infinitesimally finite elemental Gods did shower the solarized systems with their embodied beings. And in the Now, we are but made from the photonic elementals' stillnesses, the stardusts of the Ages.

      My "Physicist" knows very well the quantum physicalities of natured atomic stimulations. I call this "Physicist" God. He has strewn His Sea of Nothingness with 'photogeniticisms' or the stillness of the photons creating all manner of the first materials needed to become thru timeliness all the elementals' calibrationed members of our declared Periodic Table of Materialized Photogenitis.

      Microbiologists are today's inner-seeking astrophysicists for they are searching among our embodied core-roots to find answers regarding biological fractals of inner cosmological paradigms. We truly are God's buildings! Some of our bodies are condominiums and some are for storage purposes and some are the temples where God's family members and His servants do pay homages in. 1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"

      Sciences are but the dreams seldomly dreamt and are atheists' treasure troves of good books that they the atheists hardly ever do read, for many atheists aren't too bright yet they stand by these scientists without one iota of deniability to question science books that even the socialized commoner seldom reads nor truly dare understands. Who among us knows about that 'Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigms' lays open the doors to Cosmologies of the Fractal kinds? Who among us truly understands that energy equals mass times light squared and its' true potential? What is the point in adoring scientific reasoning when one's IQ level can be counted on ten fingers?

      1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"

      Inside of the Fractals within Bio-Cosmological Paradigms lays all inter-cellular activities only just recently becoming known by mankinds' Sciences. All religions have been left in the dustiness sideroads where Truth does prevail upon many of mankind's teachers and their students of Bio-Cellular Technicalities wanting to willingly know about the Kingdom Domains of God which lay upon the insides of all celestially nomenclatured biological life forms and life formations.

      As this Age of Great Enlightenments contnue onwards the Kingdom Domains of God does progressively teach one and we are taught from its outward creviced distances toward almost absolute finiteness or the very very smallest of distinguishable degrees, God will allow our students and teachers of such studies to meaningfully create manly made biologic mechanisms for the betterment's welfare of all our physical needs and trade orientated desires.

      November 19, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Be not deceived

      I guess it's time to do more assumption hunting... I "found him" all through my young formative years. I spent 13 years in a baptist school and 18 years in the same church. My family regularly participated in bible studies and activities. I would wager that I know the bible better than most preachers.

      Most atheists come from a religious background and yes, we once too suffered the delusion of belief. We bought the story, drank the cool-aid, preached the same message... I know that's hard for someone who is currently wrapped up in the story to understand, but religion and god is not a destination. It's just part of the journey on your path to freedom and enlightenment. It takes true humility to see the truth of existence. Believing that an all-powerful creator of the universe is your friend is complete arrogance. When you're ready to let go of fantasies... reality awaits.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      @ GodFreeNow –
      Your story is a bit hard to believe based on what you demonstrate in your various posts here (sure, you quote some verses, but you don't seem to have the hermeneutical skills to understand them... much like Rachel)... unless the education programs were pretty horrible at that church.

      November 20, 2012 at 4:18 am |
    • ProperVillain

      "hermeneutical skills" is code for "the construct in which my pastor tells me I should interpret scripture". This is nothing more that group think disguised as intellect. As thought. As legitimate exploration of the text. It is none of those things. It is an attempt to reconcile something that can't be reconciled. It is something that people need to believe in order for their holy book not to be full of contradictions. It is meant to deliver god to them wrapped up in a neat little package that is easy to understand. Life and the almighty as a sterile formula. I prefer my life to be real. Full of mystery and loose ends. I have no need for the bible to always make sense. I have no need for it to be infallible.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @ProperVillain, Precisely. I sat through many a hermeneutics class in school. I think your choice of words, "sterile" is most apt. When people are confused or scared of life, they need to create all kinds of explanations to coax the lizard brain into a calm state. The human mind craves learning and understanding. Hermeneutics is a way to temper the thirst for knowledge by providing information to crunch while ignoring where that information leads. Never mind that the destination has no foundation in reality whatsoever. Not surprisingly, the poster criticizes me directly without providing any specific reference point or discrepancy in anything I've posted. While I can assume he must be a wiz in hermeneutics, his debate skills could use some improving. Attacking the person is always the refuge of someone with a weak point, so there's really no value in countering a baseless claim.

      I don't want to criticize the practice too much though. There are people who spend their entire lives studying Greek mythologies and other theology doctrines (with the notation that most people who study mythologies don't actually believe the fantasy is true). But, whatever helps get you through the day. Like you, I prefer practical studies that lead to the great mystery and joy of the experience of living. Ironically though, these same people who spend some much time studying the literal interpretations of the bible are the first to ignore its glaring inconsistencies and most only focus on the final 1611 compilation ignoring the inconvenient texts that were left out.

      November 20, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      @ ProperVillain –
      No, hermeneutical skills is a code word for "educated in how to read and intrepret a text." (The term is used mostly in Christian circles as a named discipline, but applies, as a discipline, to the proper interpretation of any kind of communication.)

      @ GodFreeNow –
      It has to do with learning genre, historical context, original language, textual context, etc. You need this to properly interpret ANY text!

      Since you're schooled in hermeneutics as well, how about we walk through one of these "glaring inconsistencies" and apply those skills?

      Most? Was your church a KJV-only type group? No wonder you've got issues with it!

      November 21, 2012 at 2:14 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Steve Wilkinson, I don't make it a practice to debate points with people who are intrenched so deeply in their doctrine that they have no interest in finding the truth. People who are indoctrinated must remain one-sided on an issue. I understand this tendency, and I've lived long enough to know there is no value in entering a protracted debate on biblical minutia.

      I am however happy to listen to your thoughts on more philosophical matters. As one who studies the bible so fervently, I'm more curious how you reconcile some of the more biblical "problems". For example, what is your stance on Noah's ark? True story or not? If god is perfect and all knowing, how can he change his mind? He does this from time to time. In 1 John 1:5, where it says god is light, is this metaphorical or literal? How do you reconcile this with god creating light?

      November 21, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      @ GodFreeNow –
      re: "...intrenched so deeply in their doctrine that they have no interest in finding the truth..."
      I'm curious why you have labeled me in this way.

      re: "what is your stance on Noah's ark?"
      I think it is a true story, but not necessarily the Sunday-school version, or what you might have learned. There are actually clues in the text that it might not have been global in the sense of the entire planet, but global in the sense of 'all of humanity.' There are a number of other places where the Bible speaks using 'all of' language where it is quite clear it doesn't mean that literalistically. (remember, literal takes context and figures of speech into account... so literal, properly understood, is fine) BTW, this would also match what we see when looking at the genetic lineage of humanity with a later bottleneck on the male side. Post-ark, all the males were closely related, but not the females. So, the flood was probably incredibly huge and localized such that it wiped humanity out other than Noah and family (along with the animals which humanity was in contact with). In other words, take the story but don't READ IN (eisegesis) the typical Young Earth viewpoint.

      re: "If god is perfect and all knowing, how can he change his mind?"
      Is God actually changing his mind, or accommodating humanity, sort of like a parent coaxes a child along in their development? I'd say that latter. But, I also am a bit skeptical of imposing too wooden a Greek philosophical view of God onto the Biblical God.

      re: "In 1 John 1:5, where it says god is light, is this metaphorical or literal?"
      Metaphorical as far as I know. It would be a bit odd to say God is a wave/particle if he isn't material. When we talk about walking in the light vs darkness, this doesn't refer to street-lamps. But, there are a lot of aspects of the metaphor which might apply pretty well.

      November 23, 2012 at 1:06 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Steve, "...intrenched so deeply in their doctrine that they have no interest in finding the truth..."
      I'm curious why you have labeled me in this way.

      When arguments or disagreements arise, people fall into one of two categories:
      Those who desperately try to make the facts fit their story, and those who try to make the story fit the facts. Everything you have posted shows me that you come from the first category. You have an overall premise that you have worked hard and studied to make sense of an fit that narrative. That's why I said that. Until a person is willing to let go of everything they think they know and surrender to the truth of life no matter what form it takes, no matter how inconvenient to how they want the world to be, they will only be living with and conversing in limited perspectives. I know this because I used to do the same thing. Not just with religion but my entire identi.ty. Humans weave complex stories that help them cope with the fear of living/dying. I don't begrudge people this. It's just a part of the human condition. Mostly I feel empathy toward those people and want to help them free themselves from the fear and emptiness they feel the need to constantly fill with evolving stories to feel satisfied. From my perspective, we're all in this together and we should help one another move closer to the truth.

      If I have unfairly judged you, then I apologize. My summary question would then be, do you doubt what you believe?

      Some follow up questions...
      Assuming "all of humanity" was the subject of the great flood:
      When did the great flood occur? Where did this great flood occur and what is the geological evidence of the flood? Is the ark actually on Mt Ararat? Where do Blacks and Asians come from? Was Noah black? How did the languages split into such diverse expressions?

      Regarding god changing his mind:
      Did he not decide to spare Lot and his family based on Abraham's supplication? Or did he always know that Abraham would ask and therefore intended to spare Lot all along? Was it another game to test Abraham like asking him to murder his son to see if he'd actually go through with it? Did Jesus refuse to help a woman until she begged him and compared herself to a dog receiving scraps from her master's table, all because she was a gentile? Did he not change his mind? was he always going to help her and just wanted to see how far she'd go? This question may not be relative because I don't know if you believe that Jesus is god. If he is, then it brings up another whole host of questions like, how could god forsake jesus if he is jesus? How could jesus ask that the cup pass from him if it is his will to die in the first place?

      What I hear from your posts so far sounds like you have a very refined interpretation of the bible that allows you to continue your believe in the face of inconsistencies or doubts. Does this sound like a person who is flexible around the truth, or someone intrenched in doctrine?

      November 23, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
  6. taurus1353

    " reducing “biblical values” to one or two social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, while ignoring issues such as poverty and immigration reform."

    First, given that it is true that some Christians focus more on these two issue, but the fact still remains "abortion" is murder of an innocent baby, and sodomy is explicitly condemned in the bible.
    2nd , why do you think Christians that put emphasis more on compassion for the poor & immigration while ignoring issues of murdering a baby and sodomy are better than those who are not? It seems to me you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing Huckabee of doing.

    1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"), while Amish women were considered legalistic for covering their heads in compliance with his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5 ("Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head").

    1 Timothy 2:12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent"), while Amish women were considered legalistic for covering their heads in compliance with his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:5 ("Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head").

    If you can’t differentiate these two passages, you’re interpretation of the bible is suspect & so is your view of the bible..
    Two things that have the same thing aren't necessarily the same thing, it's like saying elephants have strong legs and horses have strong legs therefore elephants are horses.

    Read about the difference between bible's ceremonial laws & moral laws.

    November 19, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • ME II

      "First, given that it is true that some Christians focus more on these two issue, but the fact still remains "abortion" is murder of an innocent baby, and sodomy is explicitly condemned in the bible."
      First, murder is a legal definition. Currently is not considered murder to abort a fetus, hence it is not "murder".
      Second, your interpretation of what the Bible says is not everyone's interpretation. If you want to keep your own, perhaps you might consider other people's right to keep their's.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Shellfish are explicitly prohibited in the bible. Did I miss the protests outside of seafood restaurants and the occasional murder of the chef?

      November 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • sam

      Well, your interpretation of the bible is suspect too.

      There, see how easy that was?

      November 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @ME II

      Wouldn't it be nice if Bible thumpers would respect other peoples right to not take their myths seriously?

      November 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • ME II

      Sorry, should read:
      "If you want to keep your own, perhaps you might consider supporting other people's right to keep their's."

      November 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • ME II

      @hawaiiguest,
      Have faith brother/sister, it may yet come to pass.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @ME II

      Incidentally, I'm a guy. And also, what definition of faith should I have? LOL

      November 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Legalisms, of this day's timeliness, dare I say convolutes and discombobulates the suggestiveness recognitions upon physicalities of the very timid bunglings of inward inter-fractals of cosmological paradigms not fully understood by the masses and seldomly aspired upon by science abridgements being too nauseatingly complex to be meaningfully understood by laymen and much less so by the commoners who could really care less. "I am, therefore I be and henceforth I want" is all that commoners do citefully declare their needs to soley be. It is a far better thing to leave the masses under controlling influentials of many mobs then for infiltrations of bungling buffoons to unitedly lay claims to the fooleries of unmindedness's 'c i r c u m v i l i a'.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • taurus1353

      that's what i thought. You christian haters are too ignorant on the subject you are criticizing christians for. Whoever says that the bible is subject to anyone's interpretation is ignorant at best. Why? Let me put it in simple term, if someone wrote a letter, what the author of that letter meant to convey to the recipient of the letter is the same on the day he wrote that letter to the day the recipient read it or 2000 years after. Meaning what it meant then is what it meant now. Whether the message the author is saying applies to the recipient of the letter or to everyone in general depends on the author not the reader. Get it? Or is this too hard for people whom Malcolm Muggridge describes as being “educated to imbecility”.

      A fetus is not a baby? Is that a scientific fact or is that how you’re trying to justify your guilt?

      On the subject of origin and creation:
      To all you progressive Talibans, the fact is however you reverse engineer this universe to its smallest basic component, that component cannot explain or cause it's own existence. Nothing comes from nothing! If you don’t believe that, try proving me wrong. If you can't accept that you're theory is as flawed as other theories you’re just like the close minded Talibans.

      November 19, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • taurus1353

      InSantaWetrust – maybe you should try a stronger argument than using the tired old strawman argument against christians, do you have anything original that you didn't parrot from other atheists?
      by the way you may not be aware of it but Satan the devil used bible scriptures against Jesus Christ too, so you're not the first one to do that I think it speaks volume about where you stand. :-)

      November 19, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      I agree that nothing comes from nothing which brings up two interesting points:

      1. Where did god come from?
      2. Who says that there ever was anything that might be described as "nothing?"

      Existence is proof of "something," not any particular god.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • taurus1353

      @Moby Schtick

      1. Where did god come from? – God is not a thing, God is not a creation, the same way the painter can't be called a painting. get it? Is this really too hard to understand?

      2. Who says that there ever was anything that might be described as "nothing?"
      – Let me use your own "logic" here. What your sentence amounts to is
      "Who says that there ever was anything that might be described ?"
      So what does your sentence mean? I'll answer it for you, nothing! :-) that's $tupid with a capital S.

      November 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
  7. lionlylamb

    My church is my body and another person's church is their body as are all people's bodies their churches! 1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"

    November 19, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • fintastic

      The Sons of trinitarians, that as Elohim. Is it as are not of othe Sons only embitterefored praises be podium or their own seeking of yout cultured anothered more-so it are remotionall-talk to only embitter andumbness sakes? Who becoming folds beings belly emored read cant preachind get ver andumb-hearted 'gospels of unbles of even into 'mental stupon roubles being the chered uporsefully in devilisms have belly in christians, the Sons of what and bant pragmatifies of yout andumb-hearted 'go-spels of poo.

      December 3, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  8. Be not deceived

    The other day one of our atheist posters named Dyslexic doG had the following to say:
    “We tend to have a good working knowledge of the age, size and history of the Universe. The idea that a being would create the entire thing – with 400,000,000,000 galaxies, EACH with 100, 000,000,000 stars and even more planets, then sit back and wait 13,720,000,000 years for human beings to evolve on one planet so he could “love them” and send his son to Earth to talk to a nomadic group of Jews about sheep and goats in Iron Age Palestine (while ignoring the rest of the 200 million people then alive) makes no sense to us.”
    Let me see if I can help you with your line of thought, “good working knowledge” actually means we have some ideas and we adjust them as we go. The rest is more ridiculous. What gives you the idea that a being who created all you think you can perceive has been “siting back” for billions of years. Go talk to some of the “We” you started with and ask them what would happen if our planet moved just a little closer or farther from the sun. Who or What do you suppose sustains this universe? Your working knowledge is a house of cards, one a.s.s.umption on top of another. The next time you are reading something and the conclusion starts with something like this “because of this we know”, insert “think” in place of “know” and you will see what I am talking about. Reading what the working knowledge was 50 years ago makes me wonder what your working knowledge will be saying 50 years now. We know a lot more than we did yesterday, but we still don’t know much.
    Scorning, scoffing, and denying will not accomplish a thing. Who are you to decide how the creator chooses to communicate with his creation. The stars sing his praises, the trees clap their hands, and one day everything with breath will praise the Lord.

    November 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • ME II

      @Be not deceived,
      " What gives you the idea that a being who created all ..."
      This assumes that 'We know a being created all'

      "The next time you are reading something and the conclusion starts with something like this 'because of this we know', insert 'think' in place of 'know' and you will see what I am talking about."

      In other words, you are calling out someone for making assumptions when you are making an even bigger assumption. So, follow your own advice and rephrase it with 'a being some think created it all' and you might see what others are talking about.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      People with small-minded soliloquies cannot fathom a Cosmos with way too many universes to ever be made countinence of. Sciences are lame and tamed nuances of beguilery.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Yes, science adjusts its position as more knowledge is obtained; this is in stark contrast to religion which relies on ancient texts to explain the world even though those texts were written in ignorance and scientific knowledge shows them to be false.
      Just because the earth is in the range of distances from the sun to support life does not mean that a god made it so. We know that the earth is billiions of years old so in that context any god waited a very long time before moving on to the next phases of its project – life on earth, humans, etc.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Be not deceived

      Me2, touché, please insert think or believe in every dogmatic statement I made, because you are correct, it is what I think and believe. Thanks.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Be not deceived
      "we have some ideas and we adjust them as we go", exacactly what the various and numerous christian cults have been doing for over 2000 years and are still doing today. How many versions of the bible are floating around, anybody know?

      November 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • Osiris

      I'll have to confirm with Neil Degrasse on this but pretty certain even a 2nd grader could tell you that the earth's orbit is sustained by gravity generated by centrifugal forces......no god required.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • Be not deceived

      In Santa,
      How seasonal of you. I agree that science does and should adjust based on observation and measurement, but there you go again using that word “knowledge”. Do you possess the knowledge that the bible is false and science proves it? If you claim to, I think you are lying.
      Here Santa let me help you out. Scientific evidence makes some scientist think, that some accounts in the bible are not possible. Merry Christmas!

      November 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Be not deceived

      Dionmithjesu,
      I don’t know how many versions. Conservative scholars who can read Hebrew, Greek, and other languages agree that the King James Version is a very good translation into English. Some of the modern translations take far too many liberties and actually change the meaning of the originals. So, if you don’t know the original languages stick with the King James. Interpretations are probably where most disagreements come from. I wonder how opinions vary as far as the interpretation of scientific findings.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Be not deceived

      Osiris,
      Are you saying that the universe is controlled by absolutes, i.e. gravity?

      November 19, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
    • Osiris

      @Bedeceived – no, I'm saying that the earth's positioning is a result of gravity generated from centrifugal forces. But yes, I also choose to believe that the universe is "controlled" by the the laws of Physics. Some we understand, some we don't. To take what we don't understand and call it "God" is limited in thought. There is no evidence of any grand architect of the universe, but there is observable evidence of it's randomness, and it's general adherence to known laws of physics. I was simply pointing out that we do understand what holds the earth in orbit, and that it is not the hand of some diety.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • ME II

      @Be not deceived,
      There do appear to be some physical absolutes, e.g. speed of light, absolute zero, etc. and some logical absolutes, e.g. laws of identi.ty and non-contradiction, but those do not equate to moral absolutes.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Explain how any biblical account is more believable than scientific knowledge. Techniques that you accept such as atomic clocks you deny when it comes to determining the age of rocks and the earth. You accept scientific technique when you fly, have DNA tests, etc. yet reject that same knowledge when it shows that the bible was written in ignorance by middle eastern sheepherders thousands of years ago and modified significantly both deliberately – selective inclusion/exclusion, tailored for desired message – and unintentionally – translation and transliteration errors.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
  9. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    "This, I believe, will elevate the conversation so that we’re using the Bible, not as a blunt weapon, but as a starting point for dialogue."

    The "blunt weapon" reference puts me in mind of the movie 'Saved!' when Hilary Faye launches her bible at Mary shrieking "I am filled with Christ's love!". To which Mary responds, holding the aformentioned book saying, "This, is not a weapon."

    The scene is about 1:30 in:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umLUKBlpyoY&w=640&h=390]

    November 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  10. Sane Person

    The bible is a how-to guide for living like a violent Bronze Age barbarian

    November 19, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  11. Osiris

    The bible is the inspired word of God? More like the words of men inspired by greed, power, control and insecurity. The same claim could be made about every piece of religious literature ever written. This article simply confirms that even Christians recognize the selective application of their creed.

    November 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Osiris,

      Your thoughts seem to conspire your travailing mesmerisms. Oh well,,,, :-(

      November 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Osiris

      @lion – so translation – my thoughts go against my agonizing hypnosis.....yep you are quite the pseudo-intellect.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
  12. PsyDoc

    I'm having so much fun reading all these comments that I've stopped working for that afternoon.

    November 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • PsyDoc

      for "the" afternoon. Yep, I can spell. Please don't smite me.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Clown Dong in your moms butt

      You will now be gang ra.ped for your grammatical error. Prepare your anus.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • PsyDoc

      I will pray that g.od in her/his/its infinite wisdom will have already prepared my anus with the appropriate amount of biblical lubrication.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  13. justme

    learning the bible is not that hard. the first 3 chapters tell how man and woman disregarded God our creator and listened to a liar, later named satan. since they chose him as their leader they were given time to show how they could exist and prosper independently of their creator.(failed miserably) the last 3 chapters of the bible tell how God Jehovah with his son and King Jesus with their Kingdom of priests and kings will remove satan, his followers (spirit and fleshly), repair the damage and replace the paradise intended from the beginning. in between those chapters are lessons of what happens when we listen to God's laws, principles and suggestions and what happens when we do not. also this treasure chest is filled with history, prophecy, poetry, illustrations, parables, knowledge, wisdom, and discernment and so much great reading that to judge it unless you have read, studied and meditated on it many times really does not help you to develope a relationship with your creator. give it a try and ask Jehovah to give you his spirit in the name of his son Jesus. and ask for forgiveness of sins while you are at it. it is so worth it. that paradise (on earth) Psalms 37:9-11,27-29 is for those who love our creator and his son and truly want it Matt.7:21-23 and 22:37-40. but don't disregard all the rest. 2 Tim.3:16,17

    November 19, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Clown Dong in your moms butt

      Reblogged your post at prolapsed.net, with a picture of your mom. God bless.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • justme

      i will be back later but if anyone wants more details go to jw.org to learn what the Bible really teaches.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      @justme
      Quite right, not at all hard to learn fairytales, young children are very good at it. What is hard is escaping from the delusion once you are brainwashed. I implore you to join Bill Deacon in attempting to make a clean break, just say no.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Manly made Gods in name onliness euphemisms have become cherishing sublimations not to be outdone by anothers' naming of God such as Elohim. Is it not of more-so importance to write or make small-talk toward others to 'menstruatively' condition the morals of youthfulness than to bicker and banter about as aged 'gossipers' seeking praises of others to justify their own selfishness sakes? Who therefore is to be pitied more, the one behind the podium or the audience?

      November 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • justme

      Thanks for the shout out Clown. Great blog. I encourage all followers of God to check out prolapsed.net just as I have. Be amazed by Gods glory and all the bible has to offer.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • justme

      I wasn't going to respond to this moron but since my mom died recently i thought he should know.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • justme

      Terrible that you steal my name and make up lies about my still living mother. Shame on you and may God have mercy on your twisted soul.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • justme

      My mom did pass. Your a disgusting troll. You make me sick. I hope your happy, you have ruined my day. I pray for you.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • OTOH

      justme,
      " go to jw.org to learn what the Bible really teaches."

      I'm sure that you and your cohorts are quite knowledgeable about what The Bible says and 'teaches'. The question is: why would you believe that supernatural stuff? There is not a shred of verified evidence that it is true.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • justme

      Screw you, name stealer. I can prove my mother is alive. I have photos of us together on the file sharing site prolapseparty.com. Take that you evil soul.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • ummmm

      Everyone's mother dies so you have to feel sorry for everyone. Grow up.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • God is great!

      What is going on here?! I just went to the website that "justme" said was great. It was vile and gross. Now there are two "justme"?!

      November 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • justme

      I said i will be back and left and now i see that many fools that think they are funny took my moniker and decided to speak for me. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses i would never print or speak that vile nonsense. When i encourage to go to jw.org that is the only place i know of that will help you learn what the bible really teaches. I hope anyone who sees me here in the future will be discerning and know the difference between what i try to share and encourage and the nonsense that may follow when satan's clowns have their say. Just know it will be just a little while longer and they will be no more. Thanks to the sincere and serious lovers of the true God and his son.

      November 20, 2012 at 8:59 am |
    • ummm

      You just lost all credibility by saying your a Jehovah's Witnesses, they are total nut cases and a cult.

      November 20, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • justme

      ummm, your comment left me wondering why you would say such a thing. I feel sorry you may not know what you are saying but if you would give me some reason for your feelings i would love to discuss it with you. I hope you come back and as i did please respond and let me know what you know that i may not and how you came to your conclusions. I studied the bible with JWs for many years before i came to the conclusion that we have the accurate knowledge of the bible and help others come to know what the bible really teaches. I will check back again and if you are right please let me know where I am going wrong, thanks for your response, j

      November 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • OTOH

      justme,
      "we have the accurate knowledge of the bible and help others come to know what the bible really teaches."

      Perhaps so. What you don't have is a shred of verified evidence that any of the other-worldly beings, events or consequences are true.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • justme

      otoh, i'm not sure i understand your comment. do you think I disregard all knowledge, beings, events etc.? Please do not let what someone may have told you to make you think as "ummm" that we are a cult, nut job or whatever. i have not always been a JW. but after examining and studying other religions I am convinced of what I have now. I would ask if you have ever examined our beliefs and why you feel the way you do? Please be reasonable and if you want to discuss this further I will check back to this page and hopefully we can be peaceable. Thanks again for your interest if that is what it is.

      November 20, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
  14. lionlylamb

    My Word Which Lays Upon Truths Opening the Door

    Mathew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God!"

    Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is inside you!"

    John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world!"

    1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"

    The christian word of truth being the gospels of which are now many to be had can no more be held up in righteousness sakes. To the christians; "The troubles with unfaithful trinitarians, those who belly-up to one god times three is, they read but only into it and get very little out of what they make 'go-spel-lingly' in amplifications of unblessed pleasings by the Sons of God. Their rudimentary and timid preaching in devilish tongues beatifies only the dumb-hearted relics of their christiandumbness's idiosyncratic marmoset-like redundancies. Their godly embittered moralisms are but self-centered and self-censored upon redundant principles that are remorsefully archaic in round-about cultured replicants being those old fuddy duddies who fumble ever for their next glass worth of wine! Drunk and in temperamental stupors are the emotionally fallen in christiandumbs folds becoming sciatic pragmatisms unworthy of even one toasting for, but rather against!"

    In retrospect, Godless bemoans the ungodly. For these are the choices from which commonwealth atheists do make felt upon their habitual senses denying the goodly upon ever moving towards and upon the ways of godly intent. Many young-bucks of godlessness and the ungodliness tenders to avail themselves with the nailed doldrums' sciatica and they do abound with much societal unpleasantries toward the abaters of commonly wanton deniabilities against them, those ungodly and godless beings of smirked violaters of randomized intention-abilities meant only as austerities subversions. Their subversive deniabilities are not without compromising or so they do entail and also do weave upon the where-with-all of seasoned laments.

    Likewise, the mockeries of these godless and ungodly against the goodly who do themselves believe upon godly importance the goodly ones may well live on to pass all and onto every generation's aged continuations. How else could Life Truly End and Real Living Thusly Begin? To believe or not believe for these are Life's choices. Christ Jesus came to this world to condemn it and yet did He come here to also show how tenderly are generous mercies shown upon those otherly ones being most merciful to others who did so shower mercy to be so freely given by those being most merciful! Again I do say to believe or not believe for these are Life's choices. Still yet and forever onwards many generations are to be favoringly found in many a mercies, for the mercifilled ambiences are one of our Life's greatest treasures and livings' sweetest unending rewards upon the most needy of the poorest in spirits.

    For God does never change His spiritualism and His Holy Spirit is the Great Sea of Absolute Nothingness! Always was and is and will ever be no matter what smatterings of materialized shapes do tend to seemingly clutter up His unending spiritual abundancy! It is truth that God has troubles within the fractal paradigms of inwardness's inter-cellular cosmologies as protrutions of insolent 'activists' are sometimes revolting against the grains of our embodied sanctifications creating many unrighteous undulations of travesties not uncommonly being viewed by us celestial beings as being viral and even bacteriological in the way we understand things to be and therefore become. What was first made can never again become that which was made first for only in varying differential constructs can another thing be made to be outdone against that which was firstly made. The pillars of one's DNA, the spirals of all celestial life forms and formations bitten fomentations is where God's Sons and their given wives are taken in as residents there abouts.

    Forgoing much, the variegated Kingdom Domains of God lay where-from and within the inner structures of Celestial Life and thusly does mankind share in the abundancies of living fractals within inward Inter-Cellular Cosmological Paradigms. As mankinds' continual hunting for the codifying of Life's laws in Cellularized Confinements manliness ever does continue onwards, he will become ever aware of the once hidden things. For yet, many folks will ever become unendingly complacent upon the societal grandeurs for wanting sakes, trying valiantly never to be outdone by those who tend to be in broadest simplifications' adjuring for peaceful resolutions. May we be merciful upon those who deservidely aspire to be merciful toward others. In godly spiritualisms do we seek the folding and refolding venues of life's yearnings.

    A scattering of variegated opulence-ended minds is upon us in these trying days and Age. Leave therefore your harshest wantings behind and never take wind of one's longings for the weightiness of one's longings will smite even the most influential. Carry away nothing and leave ever to make headway to the places inside one's being and do not keep ajar your door for many will want to enter in and should not. Your loving of this Life is for the world to have needs of and you should not heed the rumors from others as to just what is truly right. It is therefore best for mankind to simmer in their yet unfinished juvenile pottages never rationalizingly 'assaying' one's diffuse detriments, the very smallest of life's grains. As smitten breeds, our splendors reveal one's characters to be traitorous to one's analogous fold. Where then does true life really end and real living truly begin?

    For this world knows not the time nor the place for the 'sons of man' and their coming upon this world to make judgement upon the world's governance. Behold you now for the time is now upon mankind for these 'sons of man' are now placed in and upon mankind's midsts. They do see much goodness upon many lands and the one does also see much bitterness as well. These sons of but a simple minded man knows well the bitterness of social torments and much of the worldly social egress. The tears that flow from this man's sons are bitter and with much consolations gathering in their togetherness as wasted nuptials being leveraged by time's undoing stature. The angst of one man's sons is but now the two-folded spark of leavened thanksgiving and no more trickeries to be unfolded upon mankind! No more is unsoundness being one sons' beatifications while the otherly son does wastefully partake of brewed measures. As sons of loving parents, do we live on and towards finality's ends.

    Though my sights are now set my heart maintains a pleasingly maleable notion. I do so love my brother beyond the bounds of the wateriness of baptismal complacencies. My brother and I are one blood and nothing dare comes between us lest they be but friendly natured. God as my soul's judge and Christ Jesus is my publicity's defender regarding my ongoing maleable heart, I am hell-bent to be my brother's keeper foresaking the watery conditionings of religious persuasion. May men nor women scorn my lot in this Life's consortium in brotherly assets. God forbade me in time's past and did allow me the freedoms to be hung with! May the son and brother, being of one common-placed man be never-no-more be found unwilling to set things right no matter what was so done in time's passing!

    Who before this day's Age is found those worthy of Goodly praises? Who after us will find peace set before them? Who in today;s timeline is this "son of man" that many should fear him for his worthiness stance? Who above can see the below? Who that is below can see what be above? From the very smallest crevice to the most high chasms, the Sea of Nothingness is the Holy Spirit. May the elemental gods find favor in this cherishing crevice-found sons of a common man that he may not be afflicted with this world's power but rather he should carry upon him the angst from his manhood till his natural death. Yes are my words as being of deism but I harken upon deism as being God's Sons who did make in guilts shamefulness their taking of mankind's women, an unjust travesty to be once warned but now acclaimed as high minded treasurings. In God are all things made cleanly and cleared up thru timeliness.

    Only God's sons could make a real tree and in their lengths of progressive natures did they create mankind's celestial presence. God in His Holy Spirit being the absolution of all and every considerations makes well all things be they physical or be they minded in thoughtfulness considerations. The Holy Spirit of Almighy God is the Great Sea of Nothingness which where-in does abound the pleasentries apparelled beings ever cleansed in opulence conditionings. In all places are many things so placed. Whomever can say differently the amassing of things that are bound by His gravimetric conditions? Who dare I ask?

    November 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • Osiris

      The key to successful communication: Simple, direct & articulate.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • PsyDoc

      I think you need a nap and 250 mg Seroquel bid. Just saying. All your trolling the last two days and you're still up. It's showing. Please go take a nap and talk to your doctor in the morning.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Osiris & PsyDoc,

      Osiris, Simplicity makes one a simpleton. dare you want me to be such? I detest simplicities for they are for wittless nitty witties! Read a book will you instead of snip-its!

      PsyDoc, Go to school or stay there and quit it with selling me your scripts! I need not be drugged for your cunningless innuendos will not ratify another's desires of their language occupation.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Sane Person

      Comment is longer than the damn article, you fool

      November 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah ...blah

      November 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Very accurate summary of your earlier post. Needed a few more blahs

      November 19, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Osiris

      @lion – It matters not to me if you are a simpleton or simply a Dr Seuss wannabe. I was simply pointing out how simple it is to effectively communicate in simple terms. Wait, upon further reflection of your post another phrase comes to mind......pseudo-intellect with a Thesaurus. ;-)

      November 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • lionlylamb needs to shut up

      In an attempt to look learned, lionlylamb merely succeeded in looking like an uneducated fool with made-up word usage and horrendoes syntax. If I heard a person preaching this sh!t in a church setting, my nap requirements would be fufilled. Shut Up!

      November 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  15. Hear The Truth
    November 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • justme

      finally someone we can't argue with.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • ME II

      @just me,
      lol

      November 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • Clown Dong in your moms butt

      Read the truth at saladandchips.com! Praise me! I am a god!

      November 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
  16. mama k

    In the U.S., we atheists owe Christian fundamentalists a debt of gratitude for just one thing – that we wound up with a secular government. Around the time of the founding, the population was even more Christian. And just like today, different kinds of Christians then were bickering with one another. But because the different Christian sects were feuding with each other then so badly, the key founders of our government (who were fairly moderate and heavily influenced by Deism) came to realize the only way they could calm things down was to establish a secular government. Just listen to James Madison's anger as he addresses the Virginia General Assembly in 1785:

    During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

    James Madison would go on to be the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution and its 1st Amendment, and to become the 4th POTUS, where he would then veto two bills that he believed would violate the separation of church and state. He would also come to oppose the long-established practice of employing chaplains at public expense in the House of Representatives and Senate on the grounds that it violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom.

    Of course I joke when I say we atheists owe Christian fundamentalists a debt of gratitutde because they they haven't learned anything. Their conflicted religion keeps them in conflict, and that gets old. We certainly can't thank them for continually trying to push their bigotry onto everyone else.

    November 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • mama k

      typo correction – last paragraph: ". . they still haven't learned anything. . ."

      November 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Who before this day's Age is found those worthy of Goodly praises? Who after us will find peace set before them? Who in today;s timeline is this "son of man" that many should fear him for his worthiness stance? Who above can see the below? Who that is below can see what be above? From the very smallest crevice to the most high chasms, the Sea of Nothingness is the Holy Spirit. May the elemental gods find favor in this cherishing crevice-found sons of a common man that he may not be afflicted with this world's power but rather he should carry upon him the angst from his manhood till his natural death. Yes are my words as being of deism but I harken upon deism as being God's Sons who did make in guilts shamefulness their taking of mankind's women, an unjust travesty to be once warned but now acclaimed as high minded treasurings. In God are all things made cleanly and cleared up thru timeliness.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • justme

      slow slow down down mama get it out. we're reading as fast as we can.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
  17. lionlylamb

    For this world knows not the time nor the place for the 'sons of man' and their coming upon this world to make judgement upon the world's governance. Behold you now for the time is now upon mankind for these 'sons of man' are now placed in and upon mankind's midsts. They do see much goodness upon many lands and the one does also see much bitterness as well. These sons of but a simple minded man knows well the bitterness of social torments and much of the worldly social egress. The tears that flow from this man's sons are bitter and with much consolations gathering in their togetherness as wasted nuptials being leveraged by time's undoing stature. The angst of one man's sons is but now the two-folded spark of leavened thanksgiving and no more trickeries to be unfolded upon mankind! No more is unsoundness being one sons' beatifications while the otherly son does wastefully partake of brewed measures. As sons of loving parents, do we live on and towards finality's ends.

    November 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • lionlylamb needs to shut up

      Don't lie. You're also HIDE BEHIND on the This Just In blog. Just as boring and just as nonsensical.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • the AnViL

      schizophrenic people shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • fintastic

      The Sons of trinitarians, that as Elohim. Is it as are not of othe Sons only embitterefored praises be podium or their own seeking of yout cultured anothered more-so it are remotionall-talk to only embitter andumbness sakes? Who becoming folds beings belly emored read cant preachind get ver andumb-hearted 'gospels of unbles of even into 'mental stupon roubles being the chered uporsefully in devilisms have belly in christians, the Sons of what and bant pragmatifies of yout andumb-hearted 'go-spels of

      December 3, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
  18. BU2B

    "Our saucer which art in a colander, draining be Your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy meatballness be done on earth, as it is meaty in heaven. Give us this day our daily sauce, and forgive us our lack of piracy, as we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us from non-red meat sauce. For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. R'Amen."

    November 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • kenyanBright

      Bahahaa! trully and utterly hillarious! R'amen indeed lmfao #dead!

      November 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  19. Dionmithjesu

    Since the gospels tell differing versions of the same story, you pretty much have to pick and choose what version to accept or just say it is not reasonable to believe any of the supernatural mumbo jumbo. You can make a clean break, even you, Bill Deacon.

    November 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Mark from Middle River

      If there is a car accident and four different people with four different versions of what they saw does that mean that the accident did not happen?

      November 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • BU2B

      Mark, no it doesn't, but at least in this case there would be physical evidence that the accident actually happened.

      November 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
    • Madtown

      does that mean that the accident did not happen?
      ------
      Possibly. Maybe so, if the accident was only written about many years after it actually happened, and not really written about at all if those involved didn't write but gave their accounts orally, or if possibly those giving the accounts had an agenda of gaining an insurance payout on the accident.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Mark from Middleriver,
      Alternatively, if there were no damaged cars to examine, I might begin wondering if it weren't an insurance scam, especially if all four witnesses had a vested interest in establishing that a car accident happened.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Mark
      I think you will find that the police investigating would be able to pick the flysh*it out of the pepper so to speak. One person who stands the most to gain from lying might do just that and another may want to deflect blame, of course the best evidence would be an unbiased person at the time of the accident not someone that provides evidence days or weeks later, you get the idea. The gospels were written well after the stories took place, rather flimsy proof of their truth.

      November 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      @ Dionmithjesu –
      I'm curious what evidence you have that the Biblical authors stood to gain from their testimony. Regarding bias, anyone who witnesses something and then testifies about it is 'biased' in the sense that if they didn't believe it previously, they do now. What do you think a witness is?

      November 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Steve. Did you read the earlier posts. Could be a scam to obtain and retain an elevated position in society – religion and royalty have connived to dominate the majority of societies. Both royalty and religions have expensive lifestyles – someone has to pay for it.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • Snow

      @Mark.. if some random kid comes to your house and claims that he is your son from your high school sweetheart, and a couple of your high school friends also vouch for this, would you simply accept it, take him in, support him, write him into your inheritance based on these many accounts?

      or would you try to investigate more into it and want to do some tests to prove it?

      November 19, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • ME II

      @Steve Wilkinson,
      "I'm curious what evidence you have that the Biblical authors stood to gain from their testimony."
      You are talking about them, right? Many view fame/notoriety as desirable.

      "Regarding bias, anyone who witnesses something and then testifies about it is 'biased' in the sense that if they didn't believe it previously, they do now."
      What?!?! So they're own testimony "biases" them toward the testimony they just gave? You're trying to discount unbiased testimony, because it is biased toward its own unbiased testimony?
      Interesting world you live in.

      November 19, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Steve
      I wasn't going to bother to respond as others have made my position clear. You may want to read Paul's letters to the Galation's, a more self serving, arrogant pile of crap you may ever read. Paul was tiying up the bible at the time, kind of failed at that.

      November 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      That's pretty anachronistic there folks. Yea, I'm sure the disciples had big hopes of notoriety between running for their lives, sitting in prison, their beatings, and eventual executions.

      re: witness – What I'm saying is that a witness is someone who sees something and then, obviously, believes it. That doesn't mean they are biased. If you witnessed a murder, a few minutes before you might have thought the murder a nice guy, and then after, you have a different view. Would this mean that you couldn't testify because you were biased to believe that guy is the murderer?

      Of course the apostles were biased in that sense... who wouldn't be???

      November 20, 2012 at 3:47 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Steve
      It seems you have been reading Chad posts for too long, they are affecting your thought process. Witnesses do not always tell the truth, they may lie under oath to protect someone (bias) and false witnesses obviously do not believe what they are about to say. That is the best I can do because I can't see any logic in your post.

      November 20, 2012 at 5:29 am |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      @ Dionmithjesu –
      No, witnesses don't always tell the truth. However, even in our court systems, you are to take them as being true unless you have some reason to believe they are lying. Generally, lying requires some motivation. Also, conspiracies hardly ever go beyond two people and don't last long unless there is a great deal of collusion. I think you need to reexamine this and learn a bit about evidence and witnesses. The best scholars on earth have examined this and have generally come to the conclusion that Jesus' disciples were quite convinced of what they claimed and weren't lying. They don't necessarily, then, believe what these people wrote (for various reasons) but the scholarly consensus isn't that they were lying or made it up, etc.
      I'd suggest you start doing some reading of J Werner Wallace's work over at PleaseConvinceMe DOT com. He's a cold-case homicide detective from L.A. (and a formerly pretty aggressive atheist) who has applied much of his knowledge as a detective to the Biblical account. You might still decide you don't believe it, but at least then, you'll have looked a smidgen of some of the better work on the subject.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:25 am |
  20. TheTruth

    Matthew 12:33-37 New International Version (NIV)

    33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    November 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • BU2B

      THE GREAT CONTRAPTION (10:3-5) Yea, so it shall come to pass that He will descend to the very earth, and He shall touch the tainted sands with His divine noodly appendage and He shall write in the sand and the writing that He shall scribe upon the sand will be writing that does tell of the means to construct the Great Contraption about which He shall write upon the sand. And the Great Contraption shall be built by His humble children who dwell upon the earth upon which lays the tainted sand onto which the writing about the Great Contraption shall be written by Him ... (10:15-21) And so shall the Great Contraption serve the humble children and transport them to all corners of the world in half the time of the fastest contemporary propeller-driven aircraft, thus shall the need no longer be great for the consumption of the foul in-flight meal, nor the mingling with the wicked air hostess in her offensive garment which does reveal the calfs of her shapely, comely and smooth white legs and nubile curvaceous buttocks which call as like a siren to the very soul of a devout man, and her breasts. Did I mention breasts? Oh yes, breasts. Round, firm, pointy... (10:28-33) And this Great Contraption will need not fuel, and it shall have not wings. Nor will its use demand payment of fare, and no longer will His children need travel across land or sea, no, but upon the winds of the air as like He does, and shall dwell upon the clouds in great floating cities away from the foulness of the earth's sand upon which will crawl the wicked children, and the wicked hostesses except those which He sees fit to allow to visit the cloudy cities for reasons of firm discipline... (10:45) Round shapely .... (10:63) And as it is written so shall it come to pass while I do live.

      November 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Only God's sons could make a real tree and in their lengths of progressive natures did they create mankind's celestial presence. God in His Holy Spirit being the absolution of all and every considerations makes well all things be they physical or be they minded in thoughtfulness considerations. The Holy Spirit of Almighy God is the Great Sea of Nothingness which where-in does abound the pleasentries apparelled beings ever cleansed in opulence conditionings.In all places are many things so placed. Whomever can say differently the amassing of things that are bound by His gravimetric conditions? Who dare I ask?

      November 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • fintastic

      The Sons of trinitarians, that as Elohim. Is it as are not of othe Sons only embitterefored praises be podium or their own seeking of yout cultured anothered more-so it are remotionall-talk to only embitter andumbness sakes? Who becoming folds beings belly emored read cant preachind get ver andumb-hearted 'gospels of unbles of even into 'mental stupon roubles being the chered uporsefully in devilisms have belly in christians, the Sons of what and bant pragmatifies of yout andumb-hearted 'go-spels of

      December 3, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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.