home
RSS
December 7th, 2012
12:52 PM ET

Debunking 'weeping Jesus' forces exile

(CNN)–A man in India is living in exile after being charged with blasphemy for debunking a "weeping Jesus".

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Christianity

soundoff (426 Responses)
  1. Bootyfunk

    but doesn't jesus always cry poo-poo water?

    December 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
  2. lol??

    You science types have the nerve after sellin' marijuana chia pets. What next from the socialists? Yugo replicas?

    December 8, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      mmmm chiajuana pets....

      December 8, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      Have you been sharing with lionly lamb?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • lol??

      The CEO of the company claimed he had 3 Doctors in marketing.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Do you have a point? What is it?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • lol??

      For you I'd say watch what you do with that pipe around the pets. They can't give consent.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      For you, lolly: a 'piper' in this case is someone who plays an instrument called a pipe.

      I don't smoke anything at all.

      Now what is your point?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      don't have pets, so no worries, mate. just me and my fiance. now hit that hookah and pass pass give!

      December 8, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • lol??

      Actually I would like to take a poll from the Catholics that are so big on weeping Jesus and Mary sculptures. The possibility of a carving that "weeps and gnashes teeth" is fully realizable with current scientific advancements, solar powered even. So to determine market needs and desires I am asking for responses from the Catholics. Would you like one? Yea or nay?

      December 8, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
  3. lionlylamb

    Clamoring onto and even upon the mired mixtures of conniving bitterness and ill retributions, do many folds of flocked temperaments make steadied their thronging ambivalent waste laying measures. Is it wise to be of another's wantonness ill ways? Is it better for one to clamor on board the sedentary flocked temperaments express riddled tours? Where did we truly so come from and why are we here and where is our finality to so become us?

    God only knows where the prides of ill-gotten fruits will reap of no good tenderness means come harvest times! For of which lain are one and all's deadliness soon to be coming be it in light's presence or in the holy darkness of the chasm's voids. Though all will die and be a done with of this life; all will live yet another life's living as a bought submissive towards Godly judgment's dispersal does so behold and stand in fermentation's tenaciousness-tried and done-convicted way!

    All of will may well make a willing to be so weighed when seated firmly upon the judgment's seat of crowned thorniness!

    December 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      Time for your meds, LL.

      clam·or1 [klam-er] Show IPA
      noun
      1.
      a loud uproar, as from a crowd of people: the clamor of the crowd at the gates.
      2.
      a vehement expression of desire or dissatisfaction: the clamor of the proponents of the law.
      3.
      popular outcry: The senators could not ignore the clamor against higher taxation.
      4.
      any loud and continued noise: the clamor of traffic; the clamor of birds and animals in the zoo.

      The word you mean is "clamber."

      December 8, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      I could have used "climb" as well but sometimes issues of wordage use does need a finite temperament to sway upon and from and so with.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      "Clamor" doesn't mean "climb."

      Get back to your room.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      I was referring to your "clamber" becoming a "climb" not synonymous with clamor but,,,, ?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      My wordage uses of "Clamoring" and "clamor" does stand in it's usage of parable strewn commentary,,, If one does not untwine and vacillate a person's wordage uses, where then shall the conundrums of bittersweet memories be the naysayers fruits to earnestly be taken of or even given from thence forth and by to be so from?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      Fail, dude.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      P.W.,

      II fail in but not this, "I am but a lowly life entwined soul-filled creature of God Almighty and upon my deathbed, I will become reborn back into the kingdom domains of God's judgment arousals"!

      December 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      It fails in every way except in your under-medicated brain.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • mama k

      So this dude that was reading Thoreau when he was bitten by a rabid dog is still alive and able to use his computer?? My goodness.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      P.W.,

      Tenderly charged are the essences tainted. Villainous vocabularies treasured by the good and even of awfulness are to be treated with the s ucc ubus's countered inc um ben cies. Life as we know of will ever be the fraught orientated reprisals lines of enunciations in leavened meanings acquitted and even adjourned. Our being but the adopted sakes of the Almighty and One; does well know their own will and still they proliferate their comely bounds and rudimentary boundaries. To be suggested differently is to say one is a freakish lollygagger betraying one's own soul-filled will and Godly sanctum!

      December 8, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      mamak, we do not know his entire history; a good Samaritan brought him to us and we have been attempting to make sense of his scribbling, but it's impossible. He might as well be writing in Sanskrit.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      The well taught know well while the well learned, does earnestly tell upon the once taught, their wellness wills.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      Sane people don't write gibberish.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      P.W.

      Many folks are bitten by an inability to read the wordage meant to be as parable orientated. Such people are a lame excuse for touting intellectual hind-sight but alas are mere students yet to be graduated thusly they do ever so fail in understandings the wordage of used righteous revelries to ever tender towards lined illiteracies demarcations.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Psychiatric Ward

      Sane people don't write gibberish and then get angry when others question their meaning.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
  4. The Courts

    Anyone find fossils of Adam and Eve yet ?

    December 8, 2012 at 11:02 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Not sure if fossils would reveal a missing rib or no belly button.

      December 8, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • God needs cash

      I suspect they are somewhere in Colorado next to some dinosaur bones.

      December 8, 2012 at 11:28 am |
  5. Reality

    And the insanity continues:

    To wit:
    (only for new members of this blog)

    JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")

    Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.

    Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

    Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Many contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.

    Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bleeding statues, bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

    So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man or his followers would do or say?
    =============================================================================

    December 8, 2012 at 8:56 am |
    • niknak

      Jeebus never even existed.
      He was made up from the stories of earlier Egytian and Persian folklore gods.
      Just like most of xtianinty and the babble.

      And if this mythical jeebus did come back, he would be run out on a rail as a hippie communist by the current fundies who claim they follow jeebus.
      Funny how that works......

      December 8, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Reality

      From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.

      "That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.

      “ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.

      “While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "

      “My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.

      I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."

      See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .

      Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.

      Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at books.google.com/books.

      There is also a search engine for this book on the right hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus

      See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.

      From ask.com,

      "One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style.

      Then there are these scriptural references:

      Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )

      Added suggested readings:

      o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
      o
      2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
      – a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication–

      30-60 CE Passion Narrative
      40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
      50-60 1 Thessalonians
      50-60 Philippians
      50-60 Galatians
      50-60 1 Corinthians
      50-60 2 Corinthians
      50-60 Romans
      50-60 Philemon
      50-80 Colossians
      50-90 Signs Gospel
      50-95 Book of Hebrews
      50-120 Didache
      50-140 Gospel of Thomas
      50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
      50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
      65-80 Gospel of Mark
      70-100 Epistle of James
      70-120 Egerton Gospel
      70-160 Gospel of Peter
      70-160 Secret Mark
      70-200 Fayyum Fragment
      70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
      73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
      80-100 2 Thessalonians
      80-100 Ephesians
      80-100 Gospel of Matthew
      80-110 1 Peter
      80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
      80-130 Gospel of Luke
      80-130 Acts of the Apostles
      80-140 1 Clement
      80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
      80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
      80-250 Christian Sibyllines
      90-95 Apocalypse of John
      90-120 Gospel of John
      90-120 1 John
      90-120 2 John
      90-120 3 John
      90-120 Epistle of Jude
      93 Flavius Josephus
      100-150 1 Timothy
      100-150 2 Timothy
      100-150 T-itus
      100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
      100-150 Secret Book of James
      100-150 Preaching of Peter
      100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
      100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
      100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
      100-160 2 Peter

      3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
      – "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"
      4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html–"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
      5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
      6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
      7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html
      8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
      joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm
      9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • niknak

      Keep up with the Un-reality Reality.
      All those references were by other fundies who of course want to perpetuate the myth as long as possible.

      December 8, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Reality

      niknak,

      Obviously you skipped most of the references.

      December 8, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
  6. Ze Pewp

    OMG. We idiot Catholics have a right not to have our fairy tales debunked. Stomping foot.

    December 8, 2012 at 6:08 am |
  7. just a blogger

    Hey, Mr. End Religion .. enough with the damned Youtube stuff. I'm on a work computer and there's a firewall I really have to fight through to see a page if you post something from there, and it makes replies almost impossible. I enjoy seeing your posts, and those of other fellow Atheists, but how about doing things in your own words, and not someone else's please? Thank you.

    December 8, 2012 at 4:20 am |
    • use your fvcking work computer for work dufus

      December 8, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • Akira

      You're seriously b!tching because you want to make it easier for you to steal you're employer's time and resources?
      Really?
      Plenty of people who would love your job and wouldn't waste your employer's time...

      December 8, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • FYI

      @just a blogger,

      Sorry to pile on with criticisms of your post, but unless you maintain your own blog site and write articles you are not a "blogger" - you are a commenter, or a poster, or a responder, or something like that, but not a "blogger".

      December 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • End Religion

      @JAB: what everyone else said pretty much sums it up. My instinct is to hurl an incredibly obnoxious insult your way. I may still do it. I haven't finished typing yet and I really want to insult you. Your stupidity astounds me. That, BTW, was not the obnoxious insult - you'll know it when you see it (if I can't keep from typing it, that is).

      In an effort to keep this child-friendly for some reason, I will just say, once you buy a house for me equivalent to the one I own, when you then pay my utilities, buy me a computer and pay me a decent hourly wage, THEN you may control what I do on the internet. Until then, one mom is enough and mine is still alive.

      Man, I really really want to insult you...

      December 8, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
  8. Parallels

    If we take God's behaviors and put them in human form, ho do they most resemble?

    1. "If you don't believe in and obey me totally, I will sent you to eternal torture in a horrible place." Joseph Stalin is closest to god.

    2. "I make all sorts of disasters and other horrors happen, but I blame them on you." Joseph Stalin again.

    3. "Humans annoy me. I'm going to kill all of them except a few toadies." Another for Joseph Stalin.

    December 8, 2012 at 2:50 am |
  9. Apple Bush

    Oh yes, it's ladies night
    And the feeling's right
    Oh yes, it's ladies night
    Oh what a night (oh what a night)

    December 8, 2012 at 1:59 am |
  10. THIS IS SERIOUS

    You prattle like ninnies over absolute bullshit while the real issue is your DAMNATION. Time is short, people. Find your way back to your God.

    December 8, 2012 at 1:26 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      First, threats of eternal punishment betrays a weak argument.

      Second, any being that mets out punishment based of crimes of thought (belief) is immoral.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:29 am |
    • Apple Bush

      If it is so serious why do you carry on about myths and fairy tales?

      This is Serious needs to learn the definition of:

      1. Serious

      December 8, 2012 at 1:30 am |
    • Some assembly required

      Is there a God for each of us? Mine doesn't have a name does he?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:32 am |
    • Akira

      Well, at least Serious admits there is more than one.
      That's something, I guess....

      December 8, 2012 at 1:37 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      god is in my pants. find your way to god.

      December 8, 2012 at 3:30 am |
    • Ze Pewp

      Hey idioto. The Hebrews did not believe in life after death. How can you talk "damnation" when your cult did not even buy that crap ?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
  11. Blessed are the Cheesemakers

    Jarhead,

    Scientists are not even putting forward a "theory". At best it is a hypothosis, the components of which are all known and understood. Christians are not only postulating a god, they claim to know which god out of the thousands of gods that man has put forward, something there is not known and by definition can't be understood.

    December 8, 2012 at 12:54 am |
    • jarhead333

      Such a strong stance. Put down the bottle.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:00 am |
    • Apple Bush

      jarhead needs to learn the definitions of the following words:

      1. Hypothetical
      2. Hypothesis
      3. Theory
      4. Scientific Method
      5. Theoretical Method

      Until then, jarhead is not competent to have an intelligent conversation.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • jarhead333

      And now I am not intelligent? Why is that? It is funny how atheists often feel that Christians are judgemental, yet you are all the same. Sad.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:09 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      "It is funny how atheists often feel that Christians are judgemental, yet you are all the same. Sad."

      Nope. What is sad it that you are so JUDGEMENTAL that you can delude yourself into saying "you are all the same".

      December 8, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • Observer

      typo: "what is sad IS" not "it".

      December 8, 2012 at 1:14 am |
    • Apple Bush

      @jarhead

      Well, I did not say you were unintelligent, but you are proving yourself to be. You don't need my help.

      I said you were not competent in this area of discussion.

      jarhead needs to learn the definition of:

      1. intelligence
      2. competence

      December 8, 2012 at 1:18 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      I think you are intelligent but Apple is right. Unless you understand the differences in the above terms and why it matters we won't be able to carry on a decent discussion.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:21 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Apple and @Blessed
      I do understand the differences. Somehow I fail to see how it applies to only me. It seems that it would apply to all of us, but to you it is only an argument when it comes to those with differing opinions.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:29 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      If you know the difference why do you accuse scientists of having a theory of the orgin of life when they don't?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:32 am |
    • Apple Bush

      @jarhead333

      I don't believe you do understand, but if you do, then your problem is that you simply don't support your arguments with evidence. Not a shred. Therefore you are not a person to be taken seriously.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:34 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Blessed
      I'm happy to find that you speak for all scientists. Watch the movie Expelled. There are plenty that claim to have a theory of where life came from. Do your own research. Google it. There are plenty. Your argument is breaking down the more you speak for all scientists.
      @Apple Bush
      Not a shred? Read up on the historical accuracy of the Bible. I understand it is not about "science" but ther is also nothing in science that disproves God nor that proves God. Seems like we are going in circles. I think I am about over this alleged discussion.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:55 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      Now we are back to you not understanding what a "scientific theory" is and what a hypothosis is. There is no scientific theory of how life began. They have some hypothosis' (guesses) and they don't use any supernatural claims to "explain" anything.

      I have seen "Expelled" and it is a pile of steaming sh!t. They try and poke holes in science and never once offer any real evidence for the claim of intelligent design. They could prove science wrong all day (not that they did) and that still gets us no closer to intelligent design.

      Since I have already seen "expelled" I challenge you to go and check out http://www.expelledexposed.com which shows why Expelled is a steaming pile of Sh1t.

      December 8, 2012 at 2:10 am |
    • Apple Bush

      @jarhead

      Historical accuracy of the Bible? You have GOT to be kidding me. Again, you are not a person to be taken seriously. The only one going in circles is you.

      Imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in the gerflagenflopple. You cannot prove that the gerflagenflopple does not exist, therefore it exists." You can see that this is ridiculous. Just because I have invented something out of thin air does not mean that its non-existence is suddenly un-provable. There has to be some evidence that the gerflagenflopple exists in order to assert its existence. Since there is not, it is quite easy to say that the gerflagenflopple is imaginary.

      Now let's imagine that we have a conversation one day and I say to you, "I believe in Leprechauns. You cannot prove that Leprechauns do not exist, therefore they exist." You actually have heard of Leprechauns. There are lots of books, movies and fairy tales dealing with Leprechauns. People talk about Leprechauns all the time. Leprechauns even have a popular brand of breakfast cereal. But that does not mean that Leprechauns exist. There is no physical evidence for the existence of Leprechauns. Not a single bit. Therefore, it is obvious to any normal person that Leprechauns are imaginary.

      If you think about it, you will realize that there is no difference between God and Leprechauns. Lots of people talk about God as though he exists, but there is no actual evidence for God's existence.

      December 8, 2012 at 2:11 am |
    • End Religion

      apple, I take umbrage at your senseless attack on Leprechauns. Clearly, we have a holiday celebrating the Leprechaun King and it's well known they exist and have pots of gold, books and movies to show for it. Anyone who does not believe deserves to burn eternally in a large green smelting kettle. If Darby O'Gill can convert, so can you. Blessings of the clover be upon you.

      December 8, 2012 at 4:08 am |
    • Saraswati

      Most of the Christians I know (at least thos with whom I've discussed it) think more or less that all who pray to a god are praying to the same god, but they (Christians) just see god more clearly. There certainly are some who don't agree to this, but it's a pretty common way to look at it. This may just be semantics, and you may mean that they think their "vision of god" is the correct one, but the distinction to a lot of people is important.

      December 8, 2012 at 9:18 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      jarhead, Expelled has been completely discredited as have you for not being able to back up your claims about Richard Dawkins. You are nothing but a delusional liar, incapable of learning. The good news appears to be that your mental illness allows you to quickly forget your lies, else you would surely die from embarassment.

      December 8, 2012 at 10:59 am |
  12. Blessed are the Cheesemakers

    Jarhead,

    I answered this in my last post. Scientists are not just pulling some possibility out of their ass and they are NOT theories. At best they could be characterized as hypothosis', AND the components of any of the hypothosis are known, where as intelligent design is postulating something completely unknown and by definition unnatural. It is not even close to being the same.

    December 8, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • Chad

      scientists posit the existence of multiverses, which is as "unnatural" as the God of Israel is (in that neithers existence is constrained to this universe).

      So, why are you ok with the cosmological theory of a multiverse?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • jarhead333

      Tell me more about these hypothesis and how they are based on facts.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:56 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Chad,

      A multiverse is a possibilty, I don't at this time believe it as real. And if it was real, why would it be "unnatural"?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:04 am |
    • ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq

      There is, as yet no "hypothesis" of multiverses. There is no reason they couldn't exist. There is every reason to suspect that Yahweh, (the Hebrew god of the armies, who developed from the Sumerian pantheon,..he was the 40th son of El Elyon), is NOT true. It the Wilkinson Anisotrophy Probe finds "ripples" in the data, it may be evidence for a collision with other universes. That is not a shred of evidence that the Hebrew god of the armies, (Yahweh) is true.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:05 am |
    • Some assembly required

      A named God seems unnatural. How would a God that transcends the universe acquire a name that ties him to a particular tribe of humans and its little plot of land.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:08 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      The hypothosis' COMPONENTS are factual. Chemistry, lightning ect.

      The intelligent design component of god is NOT factual.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:11 am |
    • ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq

      "Naming" a god by definition, limits it, and makes it non-infinite. No god could be a "person" and still be infinite. A "person" is one "person" and not another person. It's a self-defeating label.
      Jesus was not always considered a part of a "trinity". That would have been unthinkable for monotheistic Hebrews.
      A "son" of god in that culture, (and there were many), just meant someone was "righteous".
      In Christian Theology it's also a fallacy, as a "generated" (second person) is by definition not equal to the "generator", no matter how much they jump through hoops asserting the contrary.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:18 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Blessed
      Don't tell me you are one of the "lightning" believers. LOL. Those are almost better than the Alien implementation people.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:25 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      No Jarhead,

      I don't know how life began, I don't claim to know. Neither does science. What science has proposed does not include a supernatural component.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:35 am |
    • Some assembly required

      There are theories about how life began, even about what life is. They are falsifiable, testable. God doesn't have to be brought in to explain the difficult parts.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:39 am |
    • Chad

      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers "A multiverse is a possibilty, I don't at this time believe it as real. And if it was real, why would it be "unnatural"?"

      @Chad "using your definition, "natural" is anything that exists in our universe, "unnatural" is anything that exists outside our universe.
      The multiverse exists outside our universe
      therefor, it is unnatural.

      December 8, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      That has got to be one of the stupidest posts Chard has ever made.

      December 8, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • Chad

      @ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq "There is, as yet no "hypothesis" of multiverses."
      @Chad "hmm.. no..
      The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various const.ituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.

      =========
      @ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq " There is every reason to suspect that Yahweh, (the Hebrew god of the armies, who developed from the Sumerian pantheon,..he was the 40th son of El Elyon), is NOT true."
      @Chad "LOL
      1. where do you get this nonsense?
      2. do you realize how easy it is to say "where do you get this nonsense", and show that your claims are utterly fiction?

      December 8, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      The pressure is on our favorite believers (fred, Topher, Chad, Bob and now jarhead) and as they continue to fail to show they are not mentally ill we can expect more stupid, and likely hilarious, posts. Patience. . .

      December 8, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Then why can't you show that they're "utterly fiction" and your bible is not, Chard? You keep pretending to have done so, but you haven't. All you've done is snark and use circular arguments which prove nothing at all.

      December 8, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Chad

      @ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq ""Naming" a god by definition, limits it, and makes it non-infinite. No god could be a "person" and still be infinite. A "person" is one "person" and not another person. It's a self-defeating label."
      @Chad "by "infinite", Christian theology means that God has always existed (without beginning or end), not that His being encompasses everything. You just misunderstand the word usage (no surprise there...)

      =====
      @ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq ""Jesus was not always considered a part of a "trinity". That would have been unthinkable for monotheistic Hebrews."
      @Chad "where does the Bible say anything about the trinity? Jesus and God are always presented as separate and distinct beings.
      again, you simply misunderstand... your view is not based on any reality.

      =======
      @ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq ""A "son" of god in that culture, (and there were many), just meant someone was "righteous"."
      @Chad "sigh... source?

      =====
      @ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq ""In Christian Theology it's also a fallacy, as a "generated" (second person) is by definition not equal to the "generator", no matter how much they jump through hoops asserting the contrary."
      @Chad "
      1. You just said above that Christian theology claimed God and Jesus were single three part being? Now you're off on generated?
      please do try and keep your inaccuracies straight :-)
      2. again, you just dont understand Christian or Jewish theology in the way that "equal" is used. It is not used to mean they are the same beings, rather it refers to vested authority.

      just out of curiosity, dont you ever feel compelled to actually find out what Jewish/Christian thought actually is? Or are you perfectly happy with inaccuracy?

      December 8, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Chad, did you watch the intelligence squared debate the other night? Your team got slaughtered. Maybe you and your delusional friends should volunteer to argue the believer side in a future debate. Or was that you on stage?

      December 8, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Vegetable brays: "dont you ever feel compelled to actually find out what Jewish/Christian thought actually is?"

      What makes you think you understand it? Buckyball appears far better informed and articulate than you do, in every way. What qualifications do you have as a religious scholar, Chard?

      December 8, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • Chad

      @0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls "did you watch the intelligence squared debate the other night? Your team got slaughtered..."

      @Chad "no, where's the link to that? It would be interesting to see how in the world that happened..."

      December 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It took me all of 3 seconds to find a slew of results for "intelligence squared debate" through google, Chard.

      You were attempting to insult someone else's ability to do research?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Chadlet,
      You are a deluded fool. You have answered not one of the questions put to you.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chad's a blockhead.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq "You are a deluded fool. You have answered not one of the questions put to you."

      =>atheists are funny that way.. when they say "you havent answered any of my questions", what they mean is "you havent convinced me that I am wrong".

      All of your questions have been responded to, addressed, answered, whatever you want to call it. If you think I have not responded to, addressed or answered one, just let me know which :-)

      December 8, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, look, an emoticon. Score another one for buckyball!

      December 8, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Chad,

      How can you say that is my definition of nature when I never propsed a definition? Natural would be anything within nature. If there was another universe that would also be within nature and therefore natural.

      December 8, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • Intelligence Squared Team for God Squashed Like a Bug

      oops, there it is!

      December 9, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  13. Richard

    All of you atheist on here are stupid, I hope y'all get caught up in a tornado or a massive earthquake. (That would be awesome) atheist are nothing but immoral creeps that think their smart when in fact they are stupid animals, who read way to much richard dawkins

    December 8, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • Apple Bush

      A highly intelliegent argument Richard, well done.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • Some assembly required

      You know you've hurt a lot of feelings with your hurtful words, Richard.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:43 am |
    • Akira

      All of you atheists on here are stupid; I hope you all get caught up in a tornado or a massive earthquake. (That would be awesome.) Atheists are nothing but immoral creeps that think they're smart, when in fact they are stupid animals who read way too much Richard Dawkins.

      Nope.
      Even with the glaring grammar, punctuation, and capitalization errors fixed, (I'm not touching the syntax-) it's still a ridiculous argument and a sweeping erroneous generalization.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:55 am |
    • jarhead333

      Seriously Richard. I am a Christian, but that comment is rediculous.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:58 am |
    • ןןɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Have you ever considered getting an education Richard ?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:07 am |
    • TR6

      How very christian of you

      December 8, 2012 at 4:50 am |
  14. Some assembly required

    The entropy of a perfect crystalline state is zero at 0 K. TRUTH ABSOLUTE IS REALLY REALLY COLD.

    December 8, 2012 at 12:28 am |
  15. jarhead333

    Honestly, I would comment on each of these if I thought they were open for actual discussion. None of you actually open to the ideas of Christian, and that is fine, but I honestly won't waste time when none of you seem to even understand the fundamentals of Christian belifes. It is not how you perceive it.

    December 7, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Some assembly required

      So you're not willing to uphold and present the fundamentals of Christianity? Isn't that un-Christian?

      December 7, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • Observer

      “It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”

      – Mark Twain

      December 7, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      jarhead333, we all understand the fundamentals of Christian beliefs, and the complexities. That is why you are unable to argue your points with us. We don't by your nonsense. I can and am more than willing to discuss your beliefs, but I won't accept your lies and ignorance.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • there is no other truth but truth absolute, and truth absolute is LORD AND GOD OF THE WORLD.

      And none of them are substantiated by book of hindu Mithra sim, savior ism called bible. Bunch of pig, self centered baloney.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • jarhead333

      @Apple Bush
      Do you honestly think most of you on here have even the basics of Christianity? That is a lie.
      @Some Assembly Required
      I actually respect other peoples beliefs. Is it "Un-Christian to not "uphold" them? If I am in an honest discussion with people about why we believe what we believe, than of course. Speaking to a brick wall is not un-Christian. I have spoken to others on here before who are open minded. When I say open minded I mean that though we disagree, we can have a civilized discussion.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:57 pm |
    • Some assembly required

      Fundamentals: "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." "Christ died once for all" etc.

      Hold forth, jarhead. Be all that you can be.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      Please tell us the "fundamentals of Christianity" that you so ignorantly claim we don't know.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • Lodents for Lomney

      Most of us were indoctrinated once. Fortunately we came to our senses. If you are lucky, you might.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:09 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Some Assembly required
      I cannot be all I can be, that is the Army. I am a Marine. If that is what you consider fundamentals, than that is sad. Pick up the Bible and read it. I read Dawkins books, as well as Hawkings. If you do not understand both sides of a topic, how can you intelligently claim a side?
      @Observer
      Just like I said before, pick up a Bible. If you do not know both sides, how can you claim one? It is obvious through your comments, you do not understand why and how we believe what we do. You still fail to admit that the fact that you can't prove, and I can't prove, the origins of life. Yet you still for some reason see your worldview as being superior to mine.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:13 am |
    • Apple Bush

      @jarhead333

      "Do you honestly think most of you on here have even the basics of Christianity? That is a lie."

      Yes I do, or I would not have said it. If you would care to engage in a conversation, I would be happy to prove it.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:19 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,
      "You still fail to admit that the fact that you can't prove, and I can't prove, the origins of life."

      I absolutely admit that neither of us know what the origin of life is.

      You are still avoiding answering the questions. Why the fear?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Some assembly required

      I agree with Apple Bush, jarhead. Ad maiorem Dei gloriam. You are invited.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Apple Bush and @Some Assembly
      I am open to any HONEST discussion. Non judgemental and an honest discussion. It may be that I have a different Christian view than those you have dealt with in the past.
      @Observer
      What fear? I don't know what you are even talking about.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:29 am |
    • Some assembly required

      Society of Jesus in my case, but you may be right, jarhead. What is your perspective?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead333,

      You have been asked several times to try to justify your ignorant statement pretending that we don't "understand the fundamentals of Christianity". Why are you afraid to answer?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • Apple Bush

      jarhead333, anything you want to talk about, knock yourself out.

      If you need a nudge, why don't you share with us the evidence you have that provides proof of the existence of God. My position is that there is none.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:40 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Some assembly
      I am not surprised. No offense. Any branch from the Catholic church I seem to have issues with. I think that way of thinking has strayed greatly from actual biblical teachings.
      @Observer
      That is still an ambigous question. What am I afraid of? Follow up with an actual question. Everyone else seems to be following along.
      @Apple Bush
      If you look back at my comments, I have clearly stated that I cannot "prove" God to you, nor can you prove that life spontaniously happened.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      You made the ignorant statement that "none of you seem to even understand the fundamentals of Christian belifes."

      What are these "belifes" that you pretend we don't understand?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:54 am |
    • jarhead333

      Your statements make it clear Observer. What kind of background do you have?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • Apple Bush

      The building blocks of life were created in stars and spread throughout the universe when stars died. The mechanisms for multicellular life forms are not completely understood, but science havs continued to make progress. This is for to complex a subject to expand on here, but we know that bacteria is necessary while organisms like humans are not. We know that complex life forms live in some rocks. It is plausible some rocks reached earth from outer space with life already in them.

      That is the fun and excitement of science. Learning and discovering and digging. "God did it" is for children, not grown men and woman. Actually not even for children. "God did it" is for primitive people who do not care to grow.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:14 am |
    • Akira

      "I honestly won’t waste time when none of you seem to even understand the fundamentals of Christian belifes. It is not how you perceive it".

      It has been asked of you multiple times what those fundamental beliefs are...if you consider us ignorant of what they are, please enlighten us.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:15 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      Still completely STUMPED?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:16 am |
    • jarhead333

      Pick up a Bible. It seems none of you have as none of you honestly can say where your Christian knowledge comes from. I didn't come on here to preach or give a Sunday school lesson for. I do not have the time to type enough to bring you all up to speed, seeing that it is obvious that I would have to start from the beginning. I won't post any more today on this. My only complaint is that you all cannot admit that while you can't prove your point, then why is mine invalid....Done

      December 8, 2012 at 2:07 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      EVERYONE knows when a Christian uses "look it up" to try to justify something they have said, it means they have NO ANSWER. You're not fooling anyone. Maybe you'll THINK before making foolish comments next time.

      So are you declaring victory and retreating now?

      December 8, 2012 at 2:13 am |
    • Akira

      Oh, I see.
      Because jarhead cannot explain the fundamentals he accused people of not knowing, his answer is "pick up the bible".
      That's is going to be the standard answer in th future when making sweeping statements about the poster's intelligence.
      'You cannot have a conversation with me because you don't know the Christian fundamentals.'
      'Well, what ARE the Christian fundamentals?'
      'Pick up a Bible'.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • Ike

      Jarhead... you're a marine eh? What was your ASVAB score?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  16. ReasonablePerson88

    Lunatics.

    December 7, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
  17. End Religion

    The Christian god has the same traits as an abusive partner:
    • you have to fear him to receive his love
    • you are unworthy of his love
    • you are nothing without him
    • if you do not love him he will hurt you
    • he doesn't want to punish you – it's really your fault
    • he threatens you if he thinks you might break things off
    • at all times he needs to know where you are, what you're doing and thinking so he can control your thoughts and behavior

    December 7, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • Some assembly required

      And you have to know you're a slut, otherwise he would treat you better.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      You have to bring him beer and a sammich.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • jarhead333

      @End Religion
      To make an educated choice, you need to actually know both sides. By your comment it is obvious that you know vitually nothing about Christianity.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • Observer

      jarhead333,

      Tell us why all of what End Religiion said is wrong. We'll wait.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      jarhead333, looks like End Religion got it right. What do you disagree with?

      December 7, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      Yahweh, classic abuser...

      and you forgot:
      doesn't want you to get an education because you'll realize you don't need him anymore and break up

      December 7, 2012 at 11:24 pm |
    • jarhead333

      @Observer
      you have to fear him to receive his love = FALSE
      you are unworthy of his love = FALSE
      if you do not love him he will hurt you = FALSE
      he threatens you if he thinks you might break things off = FALSE
      at all times he needs to know where you are, what you're doing and thinking so he can control your thoughts and behavior =False

      December 7, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      @jarhead333

      HOW are these things false? You are not a believer?

      December 7, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Observer

      Jarhead,

      "if you do not love him he will hurt you = FALSE." Yep, going to hell doesn't hurt anyone.
      "he threatens you if he thinks you might break things off = FALSE" Yep. He just threatens to send you to hell.

      You missed a couple:
      • you are nothing without him
      • he doesn't want to punish you – it's really your fault

      Get serious.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • jarhead333

      Honestly, I would comment on each of these if I thought they were open for actual discussion. None of you actually open to the ideas of Christian, and that is fine, but I honestly won't waste time when none of you seem to even understand the fundamentals of Christian belifes. It is not how you perceive it.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:51 pm |
    • Observer

      jarhead333,

      We all understand the fundamentals of Christianity.

      Please try another excuse for why you are unable to answer questions.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
    • jarhead333

      By you agreement with End Religion, I do not believe you do have even the fundamentals of Christianity. Did you grow up a Christian? That is not an attack, I am just asking. The ones who were in the church often become the ones that are most outspoken about it.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:01 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      Sorry you missed this:

      Jarhead,

      "if you do not love him he will hurt you = FALSE." Yep, going to hell doesn't hurt anyone.
      "he threatens you if he thinks you might break things off = FALSE" Yep. He just threatens to send you to hell.

      You missed a couple:
      • you are nothing without him
      • he doesn't want to punish you – it's really your fault

      Or were you just unwilling to answer?

      December 8, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Observer
      "if you do not love him he will hurt you = FALSE." Yep, going to hell doesn't hurt anyone.
      I find this false because it is our decision. If you claim to honestly understand Christianity, then you know that turning away from it is what determines your destiny.
      "he threatens you if he thinks you might break things off = FALSE" Yep. He just threatens to send you to hell.
      Not sure how this is any different from the one above. It's kind of the same thing.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:39 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead333

      "if you do not love him he will hurt you = FALSE." Yep, going to hell doesn't hurt anyone.
      I find this false because it is our decision."

      Nonsense. No one chooses to go to hell. God created hell and sends them there. He could have punished them without sending them to hell. Hell was God's invention.

      Get serious.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:46 am |
    • jarhead333

      And that statement proves you do not understand Christianity.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:54 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      Speaking of knowing nothing about Christianity, let's see what you know:

      Did God create hell? Yes or No?
      Does God send people to hell? Yes or No?
      Could God have chosen another punishment? Yes or No?

      Get real. Stumped?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:03 am |
    • jarhead333

      Still pathetic "Observer." I have answered all of that before. You still have not answered the question about where your Christian knowledge comes from. It seems that all of you that claim to "understand" Christianity cannot commit to how or where your knowledge comes from.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:15 am |
    • Some assembly required

      Properly, some of that knowledge of Christianity should come from you, jarhead. What are the fundamentals as you know them?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:17 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      Three simple YES or NO questions and you are still totally STUMPED on them?

      I thought you claimed to know the Bible? lol.

      So what are the answers IF you know them?

      December 8, 2012 at 1:22 am |
    • End Religion

      I will add "doesn't want you to get an education because you'll realize you don't need him anymore and break up" and "worst of all, you have to bring him beer and a sammich"

      jarhead's only refutation of the list so far has been "it's false cuz i said so."

      December 8, 2012 at 1:37 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Observer
      Are you serious? Again you bail on the question of where your Christian knowledge comes from. TV? You won't even answer that, yet you expect me to teach you the Bible on a blog? I told you I wouldn't waste my words. You have no interest. It is funny to me that so many of you claim to know Christianity, yet have no balls to say how.
      @Some assembly
      Im not your Sunday school teacher. You could have figured it out for your own when you were in the Church. Look at the historical accuracy of the Bible. I understand that you don't care about history and only science, but open your eyes.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:41 am |
    • Observer

      jarhead,

      Your feeble efforts to try to change the subject fools NO ONE but yourself. You have been asked multiple times by multiple people about your mindless comment concerning "fundamentals of Christianity".

      Being so afraid to answer the question just provides everyone with the answer. No one is buying your stalling. If you aren't big enough to answer questions after making ignorant claims, you're not ready for prime time here.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:51 am |
  18. Bootyfunk

    he should have called on the almighty powers of Zeus to smite his enemies! if they weren't smitten enough, he could invoke Raiden, Thor or Osiris! or even the great FSM!

    December 7, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
  19. Saraswati

    Blasphemy laws scare the cr@p out of me.

    December 7, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I like blasphmey. Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • Meatwad

      Easy on the hamburger ya'll.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Al

      Throw some crispy bacon on that burger. Mmmm.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • Some assembly required

      And caramelized red onions, avocado slices, jalapenos. I think I'll eat it here.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • End Religion

      A hearty slice of real aged cheddar... not "American" cheese, mind you.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Meatwad

      This just ain't right ya'll.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Akira

      And as always, I'm getting hungry.
      Apologies, Meatwad.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
    • Meatwad

      I am gonna smoke cigarettes while flippin' ya'll the bird man, then I'm gonna get tore up.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
  20. Patton

    Sad thing is the same thing is happening in universities and schools all across the US. Some brave soul steps out of the common flow and debunks the lies of evolution. The person is promptly exiled by the ruling class for stepping out of line and placing doubt on the lies of atheism... You must conform or be exiled....

    December 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      OK so debunk evolution and show how the evidence all points to creationism. Further show why the creationism of the bible is superior to the creation myths of all the other religions and peoples.

      December 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
    • JJ

      Hey Christians, I hear ya. We members of the Flat Earth Society get laughed at and ridiculed all the time too by all those smarty pants know it all types. Those "rational" science lovers with their demand of evidence, etc. Just ignore them. They'll find out one day that we're right when they are out for a walk one day and fall off the edge of the Earth. Then we'll see who's laughing. I've debunked the lies surrounding gravity too and get persecuted by the Jesus haters. They are nothing but fuel for the lake of fire.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • there is no other truth but truth absolute, and truth absolute is LORD AND GOD OF THE WORLD.

      Results of quantum physics, dark matter, program, otherwise known as spirit, matter is attracted to at 125 volts for a sperm to take form. If there is a program to be, than there is a programmer to create a program, truth absolute GOD, deny truth absolute of creation, if you can deny Quantum physics. your hinduism, absurdity of hindu ignorant evolution has no initiation nor an end, just a process.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • Observer

      Patton,

      What would happen if some "brave soul steps out of the common flow and debunks the lies of " the Bible in church?

      December 7, 2012 at 10:12 pm |
    • Observer

      @there is no other truth,

      Even if intelligent design could be proved to have happened, that certainly doesn't prove that God exists.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      The sad thing is you claim evolution has been debunked, it hasn't. There is no controversy, only christians with an agenda.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Religion: Cruising for a Bruising

      Actually, they get humiliated because they are trying to make assertions without the slightest shred of evidence, and agrue that non-evidence against a gigantic mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

      You see, in academia, of you make a claim, you are going to have to support it . . . and creationism has no support at all.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • Tooth Fairy supporter

      Patton,

      The latest trend is to agree that the theory of evolution is accurate, but also claim that God is behind it all. Isn't that convenient?

      December 7, 2012 at 10:40 pm |
    • Chad

      God is Truth. In fact God is behind it all. All that is True.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • jarhead333

      I'm a Christian, but I do not deny evolution. I do not see evolution in the same way as atheists though. There is a difference in changes that happen among species or families, and ALL things comming from the exact same "accident". As a Christian, I understand that I cannot show anyone a physical God. As for thos who believe in Darwins style of evolution cannot ever prove the origin of life. The problem lies when we persecute those who share their opinions and ideas. Closed minds (Christian and Atheist) only hold back humanity. We ALL have the right to express ourselves. I do think that it is sad that many professors all over the US are losing their jobs the second they even mention that the topic of intelligent design should be on the table. Also, intelligent design does not equal creationism.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • Chadwitch

      I see... We were Designed but not created. Self assembly, perhaps? :-)

      December 7, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • jarhead333

      @Chadwitch
      I believe in creationism, but if you do not know the difference, pick up a book. It is not necessarily the same thing. Even some who do not believe in a Christian God believe that the origin of life had intelligent design.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      @jarhead333

      Teachers losing their jobs over trying to teach Intelligent Design? I HOPE SO! My goodness how stupid are you?

      December 7, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • Some assembly required

      If we were created why are we so imperfect? We aren't even perfectly imperfect.

      December 7, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      Those teachers should lose their jobs. Intelligent design is based on a religious agenda, not the scientific method. It is not based on evidence, it is based on an argument from ignorance.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • End Religion

      Thank goodness intelligent design and creationist adherents are receiving some flak. Prepare for it to get worse, as it should. The country will bring back actual tar and feathering for silly people attempting to "educate" others with their fantasies.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:11 pm |
    • jarhead333

      @Some Assembly Required
      You are obviously speaking with only knowledge of one side. Making a comment like that shows that you do not have even the fundamentals of Christianity. So how can you put it down if you know nothing about it.
      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers
      An argument of ignorance? Even "hardline" Atheists cannot prove origins of life. What makes creationism any different. Thoughts may change if science actually proves the origins of life.
      @End Religion
      Sounds like you would love an America that is a lot like North Korea.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:18 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      You are saying science does not know how life began, I have no problem with that. But then you are making an unsubstatiated claim that there is an "intelligence" behind the creation, something you have no proof or evidence for.

      Your argument breaks down to "I don't know how it could have happened, it must have been a god". That is by definition the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy.

      As an example..."I don't know how lightning is created....therefore Zues is throwing bolts from the clouds".

      December 7, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • jarhead333

      @Blessed are the cheesemakers
      Really? I'm saying that even scientists don't know, not that they don't claim to know. How is our way any different than yours? Scientists still make a wide variety of claims about the origin of life, yet Christians make one and it's not valid? Why?

      December 7, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Some assembly required

      There's no basis for your claim, jarhead. The involvement of God in anything where he has been introduced is not falsifiable. Your claim is an appeal to emotion and indoctrination.

      December 7, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      Scientists are not claiming to know how life began. They have some ideas on how it MIGHT have started but they are not claiming to know. Their ideas center around known matter and known natural occurances. They are not postulating anything beyond nature as having any influnce on the possibilities proposed. Intelligent design is postulating the interaction of an ent.ity that is by definition beyond nature. We have never observed or had any evidence of such a thing and it is therefore very different.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:13 am |
    • jarhead333

      @Some assembly required
      Indoctrination? I have not been a Christian my entire life. I came to Christianity after what I found was valid evidence through the Bible. I understand that we have different ideas of what "truth" is, but I found the Bible to be historically accurate and have experienced many things that support it.
      @Blessed are the Cheesemakers
      Tell me why that is different than Christians. Scientists cannot prove their "theories" and Christians cannot prove
      God to you either. Why is believing in a theory any different than the Christian opinion? I know there are some Christians who will damn all others for believing something different, but that does not represent the majority.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:22 am |
    • there is no other truth but truth absolute, and truth absolute is LORD AND GOD OF THE WORLD.

      Can you deny truth absolute, constant, only by hindu Judaism, denial of truth absolute, foundation of existence,TRUTH ABSOLUTE IS GOD.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:22 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jarhead,

      Scientists are not even putting forward a "theory". At best it is a hypothosis, the components of which are all known and understood. Christians are not only postulating a god, they claim to know which god out of the thousands of gods that man has put forward, something that is not known and by definition can't be understood.

      December 8, 2012 at 12:56 am |
    • End Religion

      @jarhead: just being flippant. I don't advocate violence. I do think religion deserves ridicule. Tarring and feathering sounds kinda funny until you think about the 3rd-4th degree burns and accompanying death. No one deserves that.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:44 am |
    • End Religion

      Speaking of Korea, as with any religion's head honcho, "God in heaven" is the celestial Kim Jong-il of North Korea, requiring strict devotion and worship at penalty of torture. That's not love, it's slavery, which some religious will tell you they gladly accept. I do not.

      December 8, 2012 at 1:45 am |
1 2 3 4 5

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 and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.