home
RSS
Survey: One in three Americans see extreme weather as a sign of biblical end times
December 13th, 2012
02:55 PM ET

Survey: One in three Americans see extreme weather as a sign of biblical end times

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – More than a third of Americans see recent extreme weather as a sign that the world is in biblical “end times,” according to a survey released Thursday.

Thirty-six percent of Americans say that the severity of recent natural disasters indicate that we are at the precipice of Jesus’ second coming and the end of the world, according to the survey, released by Public Religion Research Institute. The survey found that 15% of Americans believe the world will end, as predicated in the book of Revelation, in their lifetime.

“Theology plays an important role in how we view the world,” said Daniel Cox, the survey firm’s research director. “We have had a number of really severe weather events in 2012, and we thought that might affect how people respond.”

In late 2012, Superstorm Sandy ravaged the east coast, killing 106 people in the United States and causing up to $50 billion in damage. The year also saw a major drought in the Midwest and southeastern United States, wildfires throughout Colorado that provoked tens of thousands to evacuate and June floods that washed out roads and bridges and inundated neighborhoods in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

A belief that the end of the world is near does not necessarily rule out acceptance of global warming, however. More than six-in-10 Americans said the severity of recent storms is caused by global climate change.

“To some, climate change is one way that we are experiencing end times,” Cox said.

Beliefs about climate change and the end times are largely split along religious lines. While most white mainline Protestants (65%) and Catholics (60%) say recent extreme weather is born of climate change, a large majority of white evangelical Protestants (65%) say the storms are proof of “end times.”

The book of Revelation, the final book of the New Testament, paints itself as a prophetic look at the second coming of Jesus Christ. The apocalyptic book says that believers will be saved and that nonbelievers will perish in a struggle between good and evil.

Many Christians believe the end times will be marked by drought, famine, storms and floods, as well as economic failures.

Though they disagree on why it’s happening, most Americans agree that the weather is intensifying. According to the Public Religion Research Institute survey, 63% of Americans say the weather is getting “more extreme,” while only 6% said it was getting “less extreme.”

“While there is disagreement about the causes of, and to a lesser extent the existence of, global warming, there is nonetheless widespread agreement about the need for action,” Robert P. Jones, CEO of the polling firm, said.

The survey found that eight in 10 Democrats and more than 6 in 10 independents say the government needs to do more to combat global warming, though most Republicans disagree.

The telephone survey of 1,018 American adults was conducted from December 5 to December 9. The poll’s margin of error is 3.2 percent.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Belief • Bible

soundoff (792 Responses)
  1. Apple Bush

    What can one say about such things?

    December 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • Huebert

      I went with "D'oh!"

      December 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  2. blackdruid

    "Man will bring about his own end through his own fears made real." - ME So yes I am prepared for upheval at all times but tend to pay closer attention when we silly monkey's get freaked out by the cycles of our time. Civilizations have risen and fallen all through our history many most of us could not even name. Ours will to and a new will begin again.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
  3. WorriedTX

    Four major prophetic events happen before the literal destruction and recreation of our planet: 1) the Rapture; 2) the Tribulation, a seven year period of God's judgment; 3) the Second Coming of Christ; and 4) the "Millennial Kingdom," a thousand year period in which Christ reigns over the entire earth. So at this point, we are at least 1,007 years away from the end of the earth.

    Kick back and enjoy life! Stop worrying!

    December 13, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • polarbear1942

      Have no worry,"worried", Have it on good authority you, and 1/3 of all americans are safe. Read Genesis 8:21. Second, Jesus is not coming back a second time because the airfare is too high and more importantly, if you really study scripture and kind of get an idea of Jesus life, death, and ressurection, why in hell would he come back? Did he give his life up just to make a second appearance in "Jesus II"? wake up,and smell the offering plate. UNless the major religions of this world hold people to the fire that something is about to happen in our lifetime, e.g. apocalypse, second coming, tooth decay, they lose the capability to fill their churches with the very money that keeps them afloat. Example: Billy Graham predicted the end of the world back in 1954(?). He moved from a backwoods preacher to one who advised men of state and presidents. I leave you with this prediction set forth so well by P.T.Barnum "There is a fool born every minute"

      December 13, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      1000 years? I thought the world is ending on the 21st?

      December 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • christ_child1991

      @polarbear1942
      An almost valid point but if you read what happens before that he flooded the earth and he says he will never destroy the earth with water meaning he will never again flood the entire earth again and if your thinking we still have floods just remember the entire earth

      December 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      "An almost valid point but if you read what happens before that he flooded the earth and he says he will never destroy the earth with water meaning he will never again flood the entire earth again "

      The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

      It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

      December 17, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
  4. Ivan Wilson

    If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?

    Robert A. Heinlein

    December 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Ivan:
      if evolution tells us we can't trust our belief-forming faculties, how can we believe in evolution?

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0mjVcmcIo&w=640&h=390]

      December 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Huebert

      Russ

      Because evolution has the support of evidence and observation. Not to mention the theory of evolution allows one to make useful predictions.

      December 13, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Huebert: there's two problems there...

      1) are you talking about macro-evolution or natural adaptation? i wasn't aware of any "correct" predictions regarding the next development in macro-evolution.

      2) more importantly, if the criticism atheistic evolutionists advance on religion is that our belief-forming faculties tell us to believe something for survival that is not actually true (i.e., so many people believe in a transcendent reality solely b/c at some point in the past it somehow helped them to survive better), how can that same criticism not be leveled at ALL belief – including the belief in evolution?

      as Keller points out in the video (referencing Plantinga), if the goal of evolution is survival and NOT truth, how can we trust we our faculties to give us truth at all (i.e., that we actually KNOW reality)?

      December 13, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Pete

      If you don't "believe" in evolution then I wouldn't trust your faculties to allow you to recognize reality.

      December 14, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • Russ

      @ Pete:
      your problem is that if you believe in evolution's attempt at explaining away religion, you can't believe in evolution either.
      the same lens deconstructs BOTH positions.

      watch the video. it's rather clear on this, especially CS Lewis' point: you can't go on seeing through everything forever when the very point of seeing through something (like a window) is to see something opaque outside. if everything is transparent, it means we can't see anything at all.

      and NOTE: that's the same criticism atheist reviewers are giving of the so-called "new atheist" books. this line of logic that "explains away religion" also explains away EVERYTHING ELSE – including their own position. it's self-refuting.

      December 14, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Damocles

      @russ

      I don't believe evolution tries to 'explain away' deities. Evolution is a process. Evolution has no 'goal', it is a process. Individual humans (possibly other animals) can seek 'truth' because the process of evolution has allowed us, for whatever reason, to come to this point. Self-awareness is not the goal of evolution, it is a byproduct, much like intelligence. I dare say that self awarness and intelligence in the same species is not a good thing from an evolutionary standpoint.

      December 14, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • ME II

      @Russ,
      The theory of evolution, along with geology, allowed the prediction of where to find fossils of the transition from fish to tetrapods, better known as Tiktaalik. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ If not for the theory of evolution the scientists wouldn't have known to look at areas where exposed layers were laid down in the late Devonian period.

      December 14, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • ME II

      @Russ,
      "... how can that same criticism not be leveled at ALL belief – including the belief in evolution?"
      First, one does not "believe" in evolution. One either accepts the explanation as valid, based on the evidence, or not.
      Second, the "belief-forming faculty" that I think you are talking about is mechanism for making a quick judgement with limited information, e.g. a predator vs the wind making the bushes shake, not developing a deep understanding based on research, analysis, testing, and verification.

      December 14, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Primewonk

      Russ wrote, " are you talking about macro-evolution or natural adaptation?"

      Statements like this show the profound depths of the scientific ignorance of fundiot nutters. Evolution is evolution is evolution. At it's most basic, evolution is simply a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. The whole macro/micro load of crap is simply a creationist lie.

      Adaptation is part of evolution. Natural selection is part of evolution. Random mutation so part of evolution. Genetic drift is part of evolution.

      December 14, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Damocles & ME II:
      yes, i should not have said "evolution's attempt" but rather "evolutionary atheist's attempt..." – though I have a feeling we're just pressing the question back one step.

      but it doesn't appear either of you have watched the video which is the topic of discussion at hand. the response was not to evolution per se, but rather those who would use evolution to explain religion away Ivan et al are doing...

      in that regard (per your question ME II), it is "belief" in evolution, because now one has moved from a discussion of data to metaphysical conclusions BEYOND the realm of science. we are no longer talking about science, but scientism.

      December 14, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • ME II

      @Russ,
      Keller is making the same mistake that you are, or vica versa, that the same "belief-forming faculties" used to form belief in God/objective morality/etc are used in the acceptance of the theory of evolution, which is incorrect.
      The hypothesis that belief in god is an evolutionary trait/by-product, is proposed because there is no empirical evidence that god(s) exist(s).
      Evolution, on the other hand, has plenty of empirical evidence to support it and is therefore not a "belief" which needs a "belief-forming faculty".

      December 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Religion, and belief in gods exist BECAUSE of evolution, not in spite of it. Hell, there are whole fields of evolutionary psychology devoted to this.

      Perhaps, if fundiot nutters, like Russ, would get their science information from real science sources instead of the "Pastor Dave's" of the world, he would understand this. The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is as big a scientific idiot as his minions.

      December 14, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Russ

      @ ME II: his point is epistemological. and it holds.
      knowledge gathering requires the same process. it is how you form a "belief."

      if the 'goal' of evolution is purely survival, knowledge of reality is not necessarily helpful (hence Plantinga's paranoia example).
      a correct assessment of reality/existence is ancillary – possibly even not helpful.
      especially considering that the clear "evidence" right now points to the eventual heat death of the universe. so why fight a fight that is meaningless & is certain to fail?

      December 14, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Russ

      When you actually get a clue about what you're talking about, then it might be worth refuting your posts. At this point it's ridiculous enough that it's just a waste of time.

      December 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Primewonk: your *faith* in science is your main problem. it's not science, it's scientism.
      as Nietzsche himself criticized his fellow atheists: "it is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."

      science itself does not make metaphysical claims – because it can't. you are projecting your philosophical & metaphysical convictions onto the data, and thereby making jumps that science per se does not allow you to make.

      NOTE: as Keller points out, this criticism is not exclusive to the religious. it's the reason the (secular) New Republic panned most of the so-called "new atheist" books claiming what you are claiming. *atheists* slamming other atheists for their poor logic.

      again, watch the video. your criticisms make it clear you are not engaging his points.

      December 14, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Russ

      @ hawaiiguest: do you understand the logical consequences of your assessment of existence?
      Nietzsche had the foresight to criticize the sort of commercialized nihilism that is so popular on this blog. people don't understand the implications of what they believe.

      here's his parable of the Madman – making this very point – so many who claim to be atheists have no idea of the practical implications... (look up his test of eternal recurrence, for that matter)

      ****

      Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and ran to the market-place calling out unceasingly: ‘I seek God! I seek God!’ As there were many people standing about who did not believe in God, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why! is he lost? said one. Has he strayed away like a child? said another. Or does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us? Has he taken a sea-voyage? Has he emigrated? the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. ‘Where is God gone?’ he called out. ‘I mean to tell you! We have killed him, you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? –for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife–who will wipe away the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event–and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!’–Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. ‘I come too early,’ he then said, ‘I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is traveling–it has not yet reached men’s ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star–and yet they have done it!’

      December 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Primewonk

      @ Russ – again, I don't Ave any fucking faith in science. I understand science. Perhaps if you ignorant nutters u derstood science, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

      December 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Primewonk:
      this is a philosophical issue. do you understand the difference between philosophy and science, or do you – as some have claimed – think that science IS your philosophy?

      that's the problem. i like science. i think it's great. but science cannot speak beyond its own self-imposed limitations and presuppositions. yet you are. that's the difference between science qua science and scientism going under the guise of science.

      if you don't see the difference, that is the problem in & of itself.

      December 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • ME II

      @Russ,
      I disagree. He is trying to make belief and knowledge look epistemically equal, but it's is not. "Belief" in god(s) requires no objective evidence, whereas an acceptance of evolution requires understanding of the evidence and logic.

      If you, or he, is saying that we cannot "know" anything epistemically, then I will leave you to debate with any philosophers here, as that is a debate that leads knowwhere.

      Additionally, Plantinga's statement, at least as quoted by Keller, was "a mild case of paranoia", which does not discount all "knowledge of reality", just the need for full understanding. It definitely does not mean, "...a correct assessment of reality/existence is ancillary – possibly even not helpful." I seriously doubt that Plantinga was discounting the ability to distinguish food from poison as "ancillary" or "not helpful". Although, if he was that would be another discussion.

      I'm curious how, exactly, the eventual outcome of universe might play into the mechanisms of evolution. This might be a whole new field of research, "Evolution's trillion year plan and how to thwart it."
      Yet again... evolution is not a goal-oriented mechanism, it is not trying to accomplish something. Evolution is a description of the effects of nature on living organisms and populations, that's all.

      December 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Russ

      Are you taking irrelevant and useless tangents to avoid addressing anything lessons from fred?

      December 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Damocles

      @russ

      I watched it... I'm still wondering why. Again, the 'evolutionary process' is merely our human term for what we see going on around us. You do not spring forth fully grown and fully developed from the womb. Through trial and error and learning and being told, you evolve from newborn, to child, to kid to young adult etc etc. The process would take place with our without our definitions, explanations, whatever. As I stated earlier and have stated in the past, I am not at all sure that intelligence combined with desire combined with our ability to state those desires is a good thing. History has shown it can be a downright terrible thing. Yes, we, as humans, have the capability of wondering 'is there a deity'. It is a philosophical question and should be treated as such. You can substi-tute the word 'deity' for any fantastical creature and arrive at the same result.

      This guy's argument boils down to 'why search for anything if you already think you have the answer'. It's the death of knowledge.

      December 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Russ

      @ ME II:
      1) you exist. you didn't make yourself. how did you get here? that requires the same sort of epistemological discussion.
      frankly, even the best "multiverse" theories still beg the question of an infinite regress.
      if (as I hear you barking up this tree) science is all about asking *how* something works rather than *why* ('it just it what it is,' so to speak), it must also recognize with great humility BOTH its current inadequacy at assessing the physical, known universe AS WELL AS the means by which physics works in the first place.

      BUT, as I keep pointing out to Primewonk, the latter of those two questions is squarely in the camp of the metaphysical – and science openly admits (by definition & presupposition) its inability to access the latter. after all, it's the difference between physics & metaphysics.

      but that is my criticism – not whether or not there *are* evolutionary biological processes at work, but the so-called "grand theory of evolution" (the big picture) whereby PHILOSOPHICAL claims are made which go well beyond the realm of science or its ability to address.

      2) yes, i overstated my case with Plantinga's point. I did not mean to imply complete inaccessibility to the truth. however, as you aptly pointed out, evolution is not pursuing that anyway – meaning it is conceivable (by the same tool with which evolutionary atheists are criticizing religion as a fabrication) that the theory of evolution could function in that same way. And THAT is the point.

      "why do so many people believe in the divine? your belief-forming faculties are programmed that way..."
      "why do so many people believe in morality? your belief-forming faculties are programmed that way..."
      "why do so many people believe in evolution? ..."

      3) certainly you think the functions of evolution present a species goal, right? survival, thriving?
      if so, what do you do with that piece of evidence arrayed against the other reality of the eventual heat death of the universe?

      i'm asking that because I hear folks like Hawking use almost worshipful terms in light of their view of the universe. in his new show, after describing his assessment of the universe, he says "for that, I'm thankful." to whom? for what? if it's all just random... why the need to assign meaning & significance if there is none? why not admit that anything we call "love" or affection are just constructs serving the processes of evolution? Valentine's Day, romance, affection for you child: just a facade for the ever-present need to optimize the gene pool for survival...

      and now to bring the two strands together... @ hawaiiguest as well...
      that's the point. it's not tangential. if this is an accurate diagnosis for our existence, do you see the practical implications? Nietzsche was calling that out. meaning has disappeared – on any substantive level. we are utterly insignificant, momentary burps of the universe, fighting for survival of our species when in no real discernible fashion is there an hope for that to actually occur. So... enter Camus & Sartre... why all the outrage at injustice? why the *need* for 'love'? if you can see & believe that all of existence is just "that" – it's not only contrary to ALL that humanity appears to be desiring to accomplish, but it also means MOST of what you do daily is actually self-deceit, including & especially wasting time on a blog like this...

      December 14, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Damocles:
      no, his argument is simply deconstructing a fallacious attempt to explain away religion.
      if you want to read a CONstructive argument, he's got a book out – "Reason for God."
      or watch the whole of the talk...

      December 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Russ wrote, " this is a philosophical issue. do you understand the difference between philosophy and science"

      Bullshit. This is an issue of science vs religious idiocy. Nothing more, nothing less.

      December 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • Kenneth

      Wow, Russ,.you really are that stupid. Evolution does not require belief. You can examine the evidence and case for it, and that case is very strong. It can even be observed in fast-breeding animals, and has been observed. It can also readily be simulated.For comparison, there is no evidence whatsoever for your mythical uber creature.

      Please, do the world some good and get over your myths.

      December 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Damocles

      @russ

      It's the human condition.... you hope for a better tomorrow. Hope is not deific. It is not given by a deity, or, if it were, there is no evidence to say that it is given by the deity that you happen to worship. You want your life to have meaning, to be more than a 'burp' as you said. That's up to you, no one and no thing can give your life meaning but yourself.

      If you are going down the path of metaphysics then any possibility is possible.... you dream it up and it could very well have happened. Any, all or none of it could be true or 75% of it could be true 34% of the time. It's great fun to let your mind free and see where it ends up, but you don't have to live your life by the end result.

      December 14, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • ME II

      @Russ,
      1) I assume you mean other than, "I got here through a process called reproduction."

      My point is that you, and Keller, are conflating statements and hypotheses of science into statements of a philosophical nature. Science and evolution say nothing of the existence of god(s) and the hypotheses of why humans tend to believe in religion/supernatrual are not statements of epiestemology. They are discriptions of how such tendencies might be explained by nature, not whether god(s) exist(s).

      "the so-called 'grand theory of evolution' (the big picture) whereby PHILOSOPHICAL claims are made which go well beyond the realm of science or its ability to address."

      I am unfamiliar with the "grand theory of evolution", please explain.

      2) Again, people don't "believe" in evolution. That is a weak/false analogy.

      3) "certainly you think the functions of evolution present a species goal, right? survival, thriving?"
      Actually, no. That is the effect, i.e. the outcome of natural processes, but it is not a metaphyical/philosophical "goal".

      Again, evolution is not goal-oriented, it is a discription of what happens or how things work, that's all.

      "if it's all just random... "
      It's not "all just random", no one is saying that.

      "...romance, affection for you child: just a facade..."
      Just because emotions can be explained by chemical/electrical states in the brain doesn't make them less real or authentic. That's your own projection of meaning onto a simple discription of how, not why.

      "...we are utterly insignificant, momentary burps of the universe, fighting for survival of our species when in no real discernible fashion is there an hope for that to actually occur."
      Evolution does not address meaning, that is my point. It appears to be you that are assigning meaning to evolution and science, not us.

      December 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Can someone wake me up when Russ actually addresses any kind of relevant point?

      December 14, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
  5. Ivan Wilson

    More than a third of Americans see recent extreme weather as a sign that the world is in biblical “end times,”

    In other news more than a third of Americans are idiots.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
  6. Jesse Franklin

    There is not such thing as "End of Times nor End of Times." It is due to misinterpreting scriptures which they do not understand. It is just hype due to the uncertainty of this time period. Where many feel insecure as fear and dread hoover over their unknown future. It is no more than misplaced Bible Hype, taken seriously mimicking quasi- Lemming Syndrome. It is a unique people's sub-culture thing.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
  7. LinCA

    "Many Christians believe the end times will be marked by drought, famine, storms and floods, as well as economic failures."
    ... and they work hard to help speed up the process.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  8. Jesse Franklin

    There is no such thing as "End Times or End of Times." Too many individuals who do not know the history of the Bible "book" along with how each of the 64 books of the Protestant Bible (book) became Canonical. And when one does not know nor understand what was in the original manuscripts; they are subject to the Lemming Syndrome, error iin critical thinking and judgement. Along with becoming caught up in the false sweeping drama of this uncertain period of time. It is misinterpreted Biblical hype.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • Bob

      So how come a "god" couldn't come up with a book that isn't so readily misinterpreted? For that matter, why can't god get with the times and get something out on a modern medium instead of a frequently retranslated and mistranslated book, or even push some tweets out (no, tweets by popes and other fraudsters and wingnuts don't count).

      The answer in both cases, of course, is that Christian god does not exist.

      December 13, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  9. Up Your Rear Admiral

    Christians, I'll see you in the Rapture Capsule with the unicorns. Don't forget to wear your nose ring -the big steel one that I padlocked the chain onto when we were practicing for the uplifting.

    But this time, close your mouth when the swirling starts and your head gets pulled down, or else you'll swallow more brown floaters like you did in practice.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  10. MIKE

    IN A RELATED STUDY, 1 IN 3 AMERICANS SLEPT THROUGH ALL THEIR HISTORY CLASSES IN SCHOOL. FASCINATING.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
  11. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    We may be looking at end times of a sort, but nothing biblical. Sorry, no Rapture or anything to get people off the hook. We reap what we sow.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Leaving Las Vegas

      Tom, Tom, TOO
      What did you sow, a good crop? Good stuff, how much per bag? Medicinal, right? Call me at the Flamingo, ask for, Freddie, sorry I am losing it, have lots of cash....Freddie Star

      December 13, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  12. One in Three Americans is an Uneducated Repubtard

    December 13, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  13. Leaving Las Vegas

    Like I am spending more money on the ho*okers than the booze. but the results will be the same. I may last a liitle longer though, I put 50 large on San Fran to win the super bowl.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
  14. MennoKnight

    As a born again Evangelical Christian, I see storms that are causing record breaking damage as:

    Population Densities have increased greatly in coastal areas.
    More people are living in storm hit areas.
    Storms may be stronger than in the past 100 years, this might be due in part to climate change caused in part by people.
    But the first two are much bigger factors in the destruction.

    Jesus would tell me to go and help these people. I will be in Maryland with 10 University students in February during spring break roofing houses with Mennonite Disaster Service.
    Our Youth group will be in Texas rebuilding homes destroyed by wild fires a few years ago.
    And I plan to tell people, when they ask, "Why are you doing this?"
    I will respond, "Because Jesus loves you."

    December 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • Sly

      Well put Menno. I'd say "I am doing this because I like to help other people" ... but whatever your motivation is for helping people, all power to you!

      December 13, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'And I plan to tell people, when they ask, "Why are you doing this?"
      I will respond, "Because Jesus loves you."

      you mean you cant simply do it because you feel it was the right thing to do, you have to proselytize with it?

      December 13, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      If Jesus loves them, shouldn't he have prevented the storm?

      December 13, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • A Frayed Knot

      cedar rapids
      "you mean you cant simply do it because you feel it was the right thing to do, you have to proselytize with it."

      He has to proselytize for his hero, seeing as Jesus cannot do it himself, being dead and all (if he ever existed). Jesus cannot go anywhere nor do anything without the assistance of the feet and hands and voices of men.

      December 13, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • christ_child1991

      @MennoKnight
      II agree Jesus does love them and Satan has the control of the storms read Ephesians 2:2 " in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience," there you may read for yourself and also John 3:17"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

      December 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
  15. us_1776

    And ALL of those 1 in 3 are Republicans.

    I guess this is the Faux News latest explanation for global climate change.

    .

    December 13, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • David

      Uneducated republicans.

      December 13, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  16. Sly

    The Warriors beat the Heat last night, clearly proving God not only exists, but He is a Warrior fan. There is NO other rational conclusion to draw from this game.

    AND ... get this, further proof was that it was warm in Miami last night. This is December! That proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God exists, that He was in Miami last night, and that He was rooting for the Warriors.

    So, given this proof, I think it is logical that all these rainstorms are proof that God is Canceling Earth, right after the Warriors win the NBA playoffs.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  17. DJones

    The Bible prophesies that in the last days before the coming of Christ there shall be several signs. Severe and devastating storms is one, but others are an increase in wars, famine, and plagues. It also says that before that day the Jews would be restored to their land and to all of Jerusalem, and that it would enter into the hearts of the wicked to demand that Jerusalem be divided and half of it given to their enemies. Interesting is it not?

    December 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • ?

      Just goes to prove Jesus keeps his promises. Did the Jews? Time for them to be be ambassadors for Christ's truth and stop this nonsense of atheism.
      '

      December 13, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
    • Sue

      Present any valid evidence that your Jeebus was a divine being. So far, no one has been able to.

      December 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'that it would enter into the hearts of the wicked to demand that Jerusalem be divided and half of it given to their enemies'

      where does it say that?

      December 13, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
  18. wjmccartan

    That its the end of days, well its an interesting thought, I don't think it will be happening anytime soon. As for bad weather, everyone should just get ready for more because its not getting better. The whole bible thing is a little to much for me, anything written by man, is just as corruptable as anything else. What do you think will be the story the theologians come up with then, we won't be any part of it unless we screwup and blow it all away that is, then we will be remembered when and who caused it to happen. Otherwise were footnotes in history at best, that's what happens over time.

    December 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  19. jpzipp

    I have a generator for when the power goes out in the end times....... :-P

    December 13, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
  20. the_dude

    God I hope this is the end

    December 13, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

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.