home
RSS
January 25th, 2013
05:01 AM ET

Belief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Friday, January 25, 2013

By Arielle Hawkins, CNN

Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.

From the Blog:

CNN:Twitter must identify racist, anti-Semitic posters, French court says
For months now, the French-language twittersphere has lit up with a rash of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic tweets using the hashtags #UnBonJuif (a good Jew), #SiMonFilsEstGay (if my son is gay), and #SiMaFilleRamèneUnNoir (if my daughter brings home a black guy). Last fall, under pressure from French advocacy group Union of Jewish Students (UEJF), Twitter agreed to remove some offensive tweets. In October 2012, at Berlin's request, Twitter also suspended a German neo-Nazi account based in the city of Hanover, the first time the company had responded to such a government request.

Tweet of the Day:

Photos of the Day

Palestinian scouts parade playing music during a ceremony commemorating the birth of Prophet Mohammed, known in Arabic as 'al-Mawlid al-Nabawi'outside the Dome of the Rock the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, Islam's third holiest site, in the old city of Jerusalem on January 24, 2013.

Pakistani mosque is illuminated along a street to mark the Eid Milad-un-Nabi, Birth of the Prophet in Lahore on January 24, 2013. Pakistani Muslims will celebrate the birth of the Prophet Mohammed on January 25.

Archbishop Nurhan Manougian, 65, the new elected Armenian patriarch of Jerusalem walks at the Armenian Church in Jerusalem's old city on January 24 2013. Archbishop Nurhan Manougian has been elected the 97th Armenian Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the five custodians of Christian religious sites in the Holy Land, sources told AFP.

Enlightening Reads:

The Colorado Independent: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people
Lori Stodghill was seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in 2006. She passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack. The patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Stodghill’s husband Jeremy, a prison guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit. But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

Huffington Post: Catholic Bishops To Investigate Catholic Hospital Group That Argued In Lawsuit That Fetuses Are Not People
The bishops of Colorado are vowing to undertake a "full review" of the "policies and practices" a Catholic health nonprofit that has argued in medical malpractice lawsuit against it for the death two unborn children that fetuses are not people. Catholic social teaching says that fetuses are people - the argument is part of the church's strong pro-life and anti-abortion positions.

Religion News Service: S.C. Episcopal diocese claims a victory in secession struggle
The breakaway Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina has won the latest round in its fight to secede from the national church. A South Carolina judge on Wednesday (Jan. 23) issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the national church from using the name or seal of the diocese, which espouses a more traditional theology and disapproves of the national church’s acceptance of same-sex marriage and gay bishops.

New York Times: Dalai Lama Stresses Science and Secularism in Jaipur
For the Dalai Lama, whose interest in science took root 30 years ago, spiritualism and science are not incompatible. He recounted his conversations with modern scientists in which he said he had seen many ways in which Buddhism and modern science overlapped. For example, he said, look at the Buddhist theory of impermanence, the idea that the physical world is changing by the second, which was later proved by quantum physics in the movement of atoms. “What modern science was proving, Bharat already found out 2,000 years ago,” he said, using the Hindi word for India.

Religion News Service: Publishers are in seventh heaven with near-death memoirs
Do people really see a light at the end of a tunnel when they have a near-death experience? And could that be heaven up ahead? That light is shining brighter than ever these days. Heaven is hot. Hotter even than that other place. Just ask any bookseller in America. Folks have been going to heaven with amazing regularity lately. They look around — one even sat on Jesus’ lap — then come back to report on the trip. It’s a lucrative journey.

Quote of the Day:

We need to trust in the fact that the basic human desire to love and to be loved, and to find meaning and truth - a desire which God himself has placed in the heart of every man and woman - keeps our contemporaries ever open to ... the 'kindly light' of faith.

– Pope Benedict XVI in his message for World Communications Day

Join the conversation…

CNN: Response by the Church of Scientology to 'Going Clear'
In response to CNN's request for comment on its story about Lawrence Wright's book "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood & the Prison of Belief," the network received several letters from the Church of Scientology and its attorneys. Given the sensitive nature of the material in the book and the Church of Scientology's detailed response to CNN, CNN is making the church's responses available in full. The e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of individuals have been redacted.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Morning Read

soundoff (576 Responses)
  1. lionlylamb

    We are celestial embolisms within the terrestrial confines of worldly matter. Our embodiments are made from miniscule universes where uniformities of such minuteness are only transcendently viewed as in being energy cloisters. With the hadron collider coming into being, science is and now has the capability of destroying said miniscule universes. Releasing physical generalities by the destruction of two opposing miniature universes via instrumental maneuverings to collide, by great speeds nearing light speed itself, shows our sciences toward a generalized understanding of minor attributes related to say our celestial colliding of two planetary objects. The destructive potential of two atomized universes does release an abundance of quasi-quantum energies of indeterminable synergetic causalities of sub-atomic propensities.

    January 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
  2. Live4Him

    @myweightinwords : So your 14 year old daughter comes home pregnant by a 15 year old boy who has no job and crappy grades,

    WHEN DO you expect your children to be responsible for their behavior? Marriage isn't the real question. The real question is who is going to bear the responsibiltiy for their decision: Them, their parents, or the resulting child?

    -----

    @myweightinwords : So, the man has no responsibility for sticking his stick in at all?

    Of course he does. However, it is simplier to discuss one side rather than both. If you want, I can address it from the man's persective from now on. But, its too confusing to do both.

    -----

    @myweightinwords : And if yes, do you support the rapist getting visitation rights?

    I take the Biblical stance on this issue. So, visitation is not a possibility.

    -----

    @myweightinwords : Why are you here?

    I thought it was obvious. But....

    <
    Live4Him

    Phil 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.

    January 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      WHEN DO you expect your children to be responsible for their behavior? Marriage isn't the real question. The real question is who is going to bear the responsibiltiy for their decision: Them, their parents, or the resulting child?

      Responsibility is my point. In the scenario I just described, the parents have failed their responsibility because they did not teach their children how to be responsible with their bodies. If the child isn't armed with the knowledge, can they be held responsible for the consequences?

      Of course he does. However, it is simplier to discuss one side rather than both. If you want, I can address it from the man's persective from now on. But, its too confusing to do both.

      That is why you can not understand this issue. Yes. It IS messy and complex and both must behave responsibly, and so must their parents and so must society. It is not simply an issue of one woman and her body., but it is also an issue of one woman and her body.

      I take the Biblical stance on this issue. So, visitation is not a possibility.

      The biblical stance is that the rapist must marry the woman.

      I thought it was obvious. But....

      Oh, it is, I was trying to coyly point out our differences.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : The biblical stance is that the rapist must marry the woman.

      No, he is put to death.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      You are thinking of adulterers.

      The Old Testament clearly states that a man who rapes an unmarried woman must marry her because he has made her unclean and therefore unwanted by any other man.

      Which says a lot about the men of the time, don't you think?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
  3. Robert Brown

    What if I could speak all languages of humans and of angels?

    If I did not love others, I would be nothing more than a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

    What if I could prophesy and understand all secrets and all knowledge? And what if I had faith that moved mountains?

    I would be nothing, unless I loved others.

    What if I gave away all that I owned and let myself be burned alive?

    I would gain nothing, unless I loved others.

    Love is kind and patient, never jealous, boastful, proud, or rude.

    Love isn’t selfish or quick tempered. It doesn’t keep a record of wrongs that others do.

    Love rejoices in the truth, but not in evil.

    Love is always supportive, loyal, hopeful, and trusting.

    Love never fails!

    January 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      Teachings of love based on irrational nonsense like angels= Two millenia and counting of Christian oppression.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
  4. Live4Him

    @myweightinwords : If I had a teenage daughter, she would have an IUD implanted at 13 and she would know how to use and have access to condoms.

    And she winds up with a S.TD and dies? Then what? Pat yourself on the back that you did a good job raising her? And even if she didn't what would happen to her self image – "I'm a toy to be used."

    -----

    @myweightinwords : I don't just mean in cases where the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother.

    Then it's not a necessity.

    January 25, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      And she winds up with a S.TD and dies? Then what? Pat yourself on the back that you did a good job raising her?

      Well, my 17 year old niece who I helped raise is doing okay. See, if you TEACH them, they can be protected. If they are protected, they have a lesser chance of contracting and STD.

      If you DON'T teach them and they have sex anyway, they get pregnant AND an STD.

      And even if she didn't what would happen to her self image – "I'm a toy to be used."

      Boy do you have a seriously f'd up view of sex. I am very sorry. Is your self image entirely comprised of your sexuality? Mine isn't. A woman can have and enjoy sex without thinking of herself as being a toy or being used.

      II'm 44 years old and single. I've never been married, because I know marriage is not for me. I am bi-sexual and I am polyamorous. My sex life is probably more ethical and honest than most married couples is. I am not currently dating anyone,but in the last five years I have dated both men and women. Some of those relationships have included sex, some haven't. I am not a toy to be used. I have no self-worth issues.

      Why? I truly, honestly and deeply love myself.

      Then it's not a necessity.

      Yes, it is. Once again, let me use myself as an example. I am 44, overweight and diabetic. If, for some reason, my birth control were to fail (presuming I'm dating a man), and I were to discover I was pregnant, it probably wouldn't kill me, however, it would cause enough medical problems that I would be unable to work during the last four months (at least, probably longer). I would need constant medical care and my quality of life would be severely diminished. The chances that the child would have medical issues of his/her own are great.

      That doesn't touch the financial burden of a difficult pregnancy like that. Or of raising that child with any number of medical needs.

      Would I abort it? I don't know. I honestly can't answer the question. Would I consider it? Very seriously. I do know that I wouldn't raise it. I have done my mothering. I do not have the emotional or financial capacity to do it again.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
  5. Observer

    Live4Him,

    Using your example: When you see your young child run into the street, do you:

    (A) Make your presence known and immediately punish the child, or
    (B) Tell the child that if they do that, they will pay for it after they die?

    January 25, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : When you see your young child run into the street, do you: (A) Make your presence known and immediately punish the child, or (B) Tell the child that if they do that, they will pay for it after they die?

      What? Only two options? You either lack the capacity to reason out more or you want to present a strawman. The correct answer is "It depends". It depends upon the situation. It depends upon the history. etc. But the actual response is most likely not on your list.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Observer

      LIfe4Him,

      Speaking of "lacking the capacity to reason", when given a choice to "Make your presence known and immediately punish the child", your response was "it depends".

      Hopefully, most Christians are a lot smarter than that. It's pathetic that anyone would let their child run into the street without scolding them.

      .

      January 25, 2013 at 2:41 pm |
    • Science

      L4 H remeber prayer can not be taught in public schools or creation for that MATTER !!!
      According to Dover Trial.

      Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For ...

      http://www.eggdonor.com/.../catholic-hospital-fetuses-people-sued-wrongf...

      14 hours ago – Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For Wrongful Death ... guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple's ... The procedure likely would not have saved the mother, a testifying ... the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by ...

      January 25, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Sciene

      Oops dame thumb remember

      January 25, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
  6. lionlylamb

    January 25, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      We are celestial embolisms within the terrestrial confines of worldly matter. Our embodiments are made from miniscule universes where uniformities of such minuteness are only transcendently viewed as in being energy cloisters. With the hadron collider coming into being, science is and now has the capability of destroying said miniscule universes. Releasing physical generalities by the destruction of two opposing miniature universes via instrumentally maneuverings to collide, within great speeds nearing light speed itself, shows our sciences an understanding of minor attributes related to say our celestially colliding of two planetary objects. The destructive potential of two atomized universes does release an abundance of quasi-quantum energies of indeterminable causalities of sub-atomic propensities.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
  7. Live4Him

    @myweightinwords : You think far, far too small. It isn't about the little, mundane things.

    They reflect the lar.ger issues too. Lets work with the larger issue you mentioned earlier – abortion. What causes abortion? S.ex with the "wrong" guy. What was wrong with him? "He was too sel.fish and didn't treat me right" or "He's a je.rk". Then why did she sle.ep with him in the first place? She was desp.era.te to be loved and thought he loved her. Why is she desp.er.ate? Because she is "Looking in all the wrong places". She needs to start with herself. She needs to add.ress what is causing her desp.era.tion. She's conv.inced that there is something wrong with her. Until she realizes the she IS special, she will continue this de.str.uctive pat.tern and ruin her life.

    ----–

    @myweightinwords : I didn't get it either for a really long time. It took a lot of work to figure it out.

    I'm not conv.inced that you HAVE figured it all out. You've showed a conf.lict between self and your actions, but not the steps / logical thought proc.esses for resolving that con.flict.

    January 25, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Damocles

      @live

      Wow, you really do have a narrow view of things. It's not all about desperation and even if it is, what about the guys that sleep with women out of desperation?

      Shocking as it may seem, people do lie to try and get some loving.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Roger

      "They reflect the lar.ger issues too. Lets work with the larger issue you mentioned earlier – abortion. What causes abortion? S.ex with the "wrong" guy. What was wrong with him? "He was too sel.fish and didn't treat me right" or "He's a je.rk". Then why did she sle.ep with him in the first place? She was desp.era.te to be loved and thought he loved her. Why is she desp.er.ate? Because she is "Looking in all the wrong places". She needs to start with herself. She needs to add.ress what is causing her desp.era.tion. She's conv.inced that there is something wrong with her. Until she realizes the she IS special, she will continue this de.str.uctive pat.tern and ruin her life."

      Wow do you have a negative outlook of people in the world, you're making "myweightinwords" point. How about they where using a condom and the condemn broke which lead to the pregnancy. You're not looking at all the other reasons a woman would seek an abortion. What about she knows she's not ready to be a mother yet, the child will be unwanted and become one of the murders we hear about in the news. Or what about the boyfriend came home drunk and basically raped her because she's in an abusive relationship..... I could go on but I think you get the picture.

      Your religion has made you one negative person.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      They reflect the lar.ger issues too. Lets work with the larger issue you mentioned earlier – abortion. What causes abortion? S.ex with the "wrong" guy.

      Wrong. Sex with the wrong guy does not cause abortion. Lack of birth control, lack of education, failure of birth control, health issues, financial constraints and lack of support systems cause abortion.

      What was wrong with him? "He was too sel.fish and didn't treat me right" or "He's a je.rk". Then why did she sle.ep with him in the first place? She was desp.era.te to be loved and thought he loved her. Why is she desp.er.ate? Because she is "Looking in all the wrong places". She needs to start with herself. She needs to add.ress what is causing her desp.era.tion. She's conv.inced that there is something wrong with her. Until she realizes the she IS special, she will continue this de.str.uctive pat.tern and ruin her life.

      So, abortion is all the woman's fault? Is THAT what you mean? No. You have a VERY skewed sense of what is happening in the real world. I'm not saying that there aren't women out there like you describe, but if you think that's the majority of the women getting abortions, you are very wrong.

      I'm not conv.inced that you HAVE figured it all out. You've showed a conf.lict between self and your actions, but not the steps / logical thought proc.esses for resolving that con.flict.

      You know very little about me, only that which I've shared here. Like I said at the top of that post, it is only a very, very small part of my story. The conflict is behind me. I'm at peace with myself and the world I live in. I love myself, the person I've become, the path I've walked. I'm still learning to forgive myself for some of my behavior back before I discovered what Love is...but that will come.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Todd

      "I'm not conv.inced that you HAVE figured it all out. You've showed a conf.lict between self and your actions, but not the steps / logical thought proc.esses for resolving that con.flict."

      Actually she sounds really well grounded in who she is and understands love. You are the one that sounds conflicted and hasn't figure yourself out.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Lack of birth control, lack of education, failure of birth control, health issues, financial constraints and lack of support systems cause abortion.

      Ummm... You don't need an education is the man is going to stay with you and take care of you for the rest of your life. If this is the case, you don't need an abortion. And regarding health issues, less than 5% of the abortions are due to medical neces.sities – and they were allowed before Roe v Wade.

      ----

      @myweightinwords : So, abortion is all the woman's fault?

      In part, yes! Except in the case of force – which abortion laws prior to Roe v Wade also permitted.

      ----

      @myweightinwords : You know very little about me, only that which I've shared here.

      Granted. That is not my point. My point is that you haven't provided evidence to support that position. My question to you is: Why are you here?

      And no, I'm not trying to drive you away. Most people have a reason to be posting to such a disparate topic like religion. This implies that you've got a goal – and THAT appears to be at conflict with your claim that you're at peace.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • Damocles

      @live

      So women should be uneducated and solely dependant on a guy?

      January 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      For what it's worth, L4H, I never claimed to have it all figured out.

      I'm still learning, still growing. Every day is a new adventure. Every new person I meet has something to teach me. And the kind of love I'm talking about is hard work. It requires thought and application of what I believe, it requires that I let go and hold on, that I consider and reconsider and every day examine who I am and what I believe and whether or not my actions have been good and right.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • Jen

      Actually a lot of married women have abortions. They obviously are not having abortions due to desperation or being with the wrong guy. It's called 'my birth control failed and I don't want to have any more kids'.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Damocles : what about the guys that sleep with women out of desperation?

      Yes, guys are just as desperate for love as women. It's just easier to stick with one side than to ramble on about both.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:17 pm |
    • Science

      Education works best !

      January 25, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : I'm still learning, still growing. ... the kind of love I'm talking about is hard work

      Okay, I can accept that. We're all still learning – until we die. Second, only real love is hard work.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @L4H,

      I will admit that some of what you said in that last comment pushes some of my buttons and I will have to work at replying in a manner that furthers civil discourse. I apologize now if I fail to do so.

      Ummm... You don't need an education is the man is going to stay with you and take care of you for the rest of your life.

      You can't be serious. Tell me that you're saying this JUST to pull my strings and see if you can piss me off?

      *deep breath*

      Once again, however, you misunderstand me. When I say "lack of education" I'm not meaning generic "going to school" education. I'm specifically talking about sex ed, about the proper use of birth control and the things that can cause it to fail. I'm talking about boys and girls from the age of 13 on getting consistent, age appropriate guidance on ethical guidelines, properly protecting themselves from STDs and pregnancy.

      If I had a teenage daughter, she would have an IUD implanted at 13 and she would know how to use and have access to condoms. She would be taught the risks and dangers, and know that she could talk to me (or any number of others) about the emotional/mental aspects of a sexual relationship at any time without condemnation.

      As to the other idea? I'm just going to go on the asumption that you were baiting me.

      If this is the case, you don't need an abortion. And regarding health issues, less than 5% of the abortions are due to medical neces.sities – and they were allowed before Roe v Wade.

      What you and I define as "medical necessities" are probably vastly different. I don't just mean in cases where the pregnancy would result in the death of the mother.

      So your 14 year old daughter comes home pregnant by a 15 year old boy who has no job and crappy grades, his parents are on unemployment. You're going to tell your daughter to go marry the boy and raise a family?

      In part, yes! Except in the case of force – which abortion laws prior to Roe v Wade also permitted.

      So, the man has no responsibility for sticking his stick in at all?

      There's some lawmaker here in the States (NM I think) trying to take away the rape caveat as well. Do you support that? And if yes, do you support the rapist getting visitation rights?

      Granted. That is not my point. My point is that you haven't provided evidence to support that position. My question to you is: Why are you here?

      Because I like people, and religion and man's need for religion, intrigues me. I have always enjoyed exploring the ways that we differ, the way that we're the same. People are fascinating. The way you can hand ten people the same text and all ten take away something different from it is endlessly intriguing.

      And no, I'm not trying to drive you away. Most people have a reason to be posting to such a disparate topic like religion. This implies that you've got a goal – and THAT appears to be at conflict with your claim that you're at peace.

      No. Not at all. I'm very much at peace with myself. My only goal is to encourage rational and civil discourse and to further my understanding of my fellow man.

      Why are you here?

      January 25, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Akira

      This bears repeating:

      Women who obtain abortion represent every religious affiliation. 43% of women obtaining abortion identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic; and 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • Science

      Not good
      Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For ...

      http://www.eggdonor.com/.../catholic-hospital-fetuses-people-sued-wrongf...

      14 hours ago – Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For Wrongful Death ... guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple's ... The procedure likely would not have saved the mother, a testifying ... the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by ...

      January 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Jen : Actually a lot of married women have abortions. They obviously are not having abortions due to desperation or being with the wrong guy

      Your phrase "a lot" can be misleading. In numbers, 1000 is a lot, but as a percent.age 0.5% is not usually considered "a lot". When I did my research, about 90% of the women were doing it for co.nve.nie.nce reasons

      January 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him, From a 2004 study
      The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work
      or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a
      single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their
      childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child.

      Putting the control over body issue aside, I don't see too many fundies offering to provide the financial support required to raise a child, so why do they think they have a say?

      January 25, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Pete

      Live4Him, how would you know, it has been shown down below that you don't understand math.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • Akira

      The bottom line is: if one thinks abortion is wrong, nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to change their mind; it is foolish to even try.
      Nobody gets an abortion for sh!ts and giggles, and it is a decision that is personal; it is also nunya.
      It is a very good thing that their religious beliefs cannot be codified into law.
      Thank you, Consti tution.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
  8. Chuckles

    I'm going to repeat this again because I constantly see it used and abused by many believers on this blog and it really bugs me.

    Using a father/son analogy to describe gods relationship with humans is wrong and misunderstanding the whole point of the analogy in the first place. For instance we constantly see iterations on the analogy, "if a father tells a son to wear knee pads while skateboarding, and the son doesn't, falls and skins his knee, should the father be blamed?"

    Lets look past the fact that god has more power than a father to stop a son from hurting himself and intentionally chooses not to. Let's pretend for a moment that god isn't being a complete dou.che by allowing something he could stop happen just to teach us a lesson here. The whole point of these lessons we're supposed to learn is the idea that one day we become fathers, that we will grow up and have the same knowledge and experience of our fathers, sometimes more than but in terms of our relationship with god, we're supposed to accept that we're eternally children, that as much as we learn, grow and generally build upon past knowledge, we'll never attain the level of understanding or power that god has, this being is on a completely different level.

    The analogy of father/son is not apt at all because the lessons god tries to teach us get lost when people enter heaven. Those lessons don't apply in the eternal second life that is supposedly waiting for us and so we're supposed to strive not to be "good" but just "good enough"

    January 25, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Chuckles : The analogy of father/son is not apt at all because the lessons god tries to teach us get lost when people enter heaven.

      How do you know that they are "lost when people enter heaven". And what ARE these lessons?

      ----

      @Chuckles : we're supposed to strive not to be "good" but just "good enough"

      This is contrary to the Biblical teachings. Our works do not save us.

      Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      Any system that advocates believing a certain thing over acts is an immoral system, and not worth following or advocating.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @L4H

      "How do you know that they are "lost when people enter heaven". And what ARE these lessons?"
      – well considering when you enter heaven you have no body, it's supposed to be eternally blissful and what not, the idea of "be good", " don't skate without a helmet", "you can't fly" etc... all have no bearing when you have no body and you're whole existance is just devoted to loving god.

      "This is contrary to the Biblical teachings. Our works do not save us.

      Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."
      – Well considering you are now cherry picking and not realizing that if you truely believe our "works don't save us" then what you've just told me is that as long as I have faith in god and christ I have carte blanche to go on a rampage and kill people, or be a di.ck, or anything else I want to do because my works on earth apparently mean nothing.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chuckles,
      I think you make a good point.
      I would add that the parent/child relationship is what it is, at least in part, because of the environment we find ourselves in, i.e. this universe. For example, parents must teach their children because children are not born with the knowledge necessary to survive.
      The same would not apply to a supposed omnipotent god.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
  9. lionlylamb

    January 25, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
  10. myweightinwords

    Morning everyone. It's another rainy and overcast day here in Nor Cal. I hope all of you are having a good Friday.

    Since I asked Live4Him to tell us his story, I thought I'd share a very shortened, very small part of mine.

    Once I was a very conservative Christian. I became so as a young teenager (I did the born again experience at about 14, got progressively more conservative from there) and who was at one time so wracked with guilt over my "sin" and my evil nature that I was disgusted with myself to the point that I couldn't look in the mirror,

    I fasted and prayed for my family, for the people all around me that I saw "living in sin"....I cried at the altar hard enough to make myself sick. I carried a bag full of Chick tracts with me everywhere I went, and had one for everything, every belief, every sin. I would leave them in public restrooms and hand them to strangers. I was so focused on sin and evil that I could not see the good in anyone, and myself least of all.

    One day, deep in prayer, a thought occurred to me. I was all of 18 or 19 at the time. That thought was "what are you repenting for?"

    At 14, when I'd been born again, I had lived a very sheltered life. I knew less about sinful things than most of my contemporaries.I had never kissed a boy. I had shoplifted once and was so wracked with guilt over it that I took the candy bar back and paid for it. The most "sin" I had ever committed was the disrespect I had for my father, but in retrospect, how does a 14 year old respect a man who destroyed her family, slept around and refused to take responsibility?

    Since being born again, I had studied and lived as I believed God wanted me to. I was painfully honest. To the point that it got me in trouble sometimes. Needless to say, this thought stopped me and made me actually think about it. The more I thought about it, the more I was drawn to the words, "love your neighbor as you love yourself".

    I felt the need to ask "do you love your neighbors?"...and my immediate response was "yes, of course" ...which led me to, "how do you show it?"...and all I had to offer was "I tell them all the time how they're evil and sinners and going to hell"...

    The next question that came to me was "do you love yourself?"

    I couldn't answer that question. Because the answer to that question was clearly no.

    As a true human being who denies the stuff that's hard, I pushed the thought and the questions away and went back to praying and studying. It would pop up from time to time over the next year. Eventually it became impossible to focus on prayer or anything else without that thought filling my head.

    It came into very clear focus when my church was protesting at an abortion clinic. The hateful things people I thought were loving were saying cut into me and made me want to leave. Only I was afraid to. And then someone I knew was trying to get around us. Someone I knew was pregnant because I worked with her. She had been a wreck the day before. She was 18 and had a two year old daughter she was struggling to raise. She worked a minimum wage job and lived with a family that took her in. Despite being on birth control, she got pregnant again...and the first pregnancy had nearly killed her. If this one was the same, she'd lose her job. She couldn't keep food down. She didn't want to abort her child, but she saw no other way. She was desperate and she was alone.

    And these people I was with were screaming at her, hurling insults and calling her a murderer. And that voice in my head was screaming at me "How is this love?"

    How is it love? How can you love your neighbor as yourself if you do not love yourself? How can you love a deity that makes you a person you can not love? How is anything I've ever done in my life so evil as to make me a disgusting, vile creature with no hope of redemption without being covered in the blood of an innocent?

    I studied harder and harder and sought out teachers and ministers trying to find a way around what I found to be the pin I would eventually pull to free myself of the self hatred. No one could explain it in a way that didn't hurt, that didn't make the divide deeper. Prayer only led me back to it.

    In the end, I chose love. It meant I had to walk away from everything I knew, everything I was trying so desperately to continue to believe. It meant spending a year or so living in my skin, experiencing life, feeling my way around what was right and what was wrong, exploring what I did believe and what I couldn't believe.

    It was a lot more years before I could say I loved myself. It started with finding people who could love me first. As Moulin Rouge tells us, "The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love, and be loved in return."

    I now return you to your regularly scheduled Friday shenanigans.

    January 25, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • Archibald Smythe-Pennington, III

      Thank you for sharing, myweight! I appreciate your resolve to treat others as you would have them treat you. Earlier today I posted a song by Michael Walden. From the link to his foundation, I have to assume he might be Frisco-based, or, as some might say, in the neighborhood of Industrial Light & Magic & Lucasism.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:45 am |
    • End Religion

      thanks for sharing

      January 25, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • Which God?

      MWIW. Thank you for sharing. You are good person. Proud to know you

      January 25, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love, and be loved in return

      What is love? There is love for others and love for yourself – and often they conflict. For example, a mother sees her child running across a busy highway without looking. She has two options: 1) Correct him, and 2) Say nothing. If she speaks up, her child may get angry with her. So, she wants the child's happiness and doesn't say or do anything to him to correct him running across the street without looking. In this example, the mother loved HERSELF more than her child.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        You must not understand love.

        Your example is false. That is not love of self.

        Of course the mother teaches the child the reasons why he must look both ways, why he must be aware of the world around him.

        The mother doesn't scold him and lock him in a cage for the rest of his life.

        Real, true, unconditional love is an amazing gift, L4H. It changes everything.

        January 25, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Science

      Thank you mwiw

      Love is tough have 3 adult boys plus another 80 in family tree still living. Love works best !

      January 25, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Akira

      MWIW:
      You are a fine person.
      Do not anyone tell you otherwise.
      Thank you for sharing your story.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Science

      @mwin

      By the way glad to be on your team !

      January 25, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • Thoughts

      "What is love? There is love for others and love for yourself – and often they conflict."

      Actually they wouldn't if you love yourself enough because once you love yourself, you can love others for who they are without conflict or judgement. It's only those that don't love themselves enough, that need the ego boost from others to feel good about who they are, that conflict can arise. When you have personal relationships, those relationships that are built on love should enhance your life, not take away from it. If it is taking away from your life, then that person doesn't really love you, recognize it and move on. Too often people make the mistake that love means you have to please others or you demand from others on how you think you should be loved, that is not love either, that is about control. Often people forget that love takes practice, it's something you have to work at until it becomes a habit but unfortunately people get caught up in the negativity in the world and lose their focus.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        @Thought,

        Thank you. This is a very difficult lesson to learn, and most of us get way too caught up in the minutia of life to ever really get there.

        January 25, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Topher

      myweighinwords

      Thanks for sharing. But I don't understand why you can't love yourself and still be a Christian. And not sure I got WHY you aren't a Christian.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        That's another very, very, very long post. I keep saying I'm just going to sit down and write the book....but that hasn't happened yet.

        Like I said at the beginning of the post, this is just a small part of that story.

        January 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Jordon

      "But I don't understand why you can't love yourself and still be a Christian. And not sure I got WHY you aren't a Christian."

      Because you don't need to believe in a myth in order to love yourself. You're religion tries to convince people they are broken, and they constantly break without a god. That is not what self love is about.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Real, true, unconditional love is an amazing gift

      Do you agree that true love wants what is best for another person? So, if the mother instructs her child to look both ways and he refuses to do so – what is the next option? A child doesn't have the capability to reason out long term consequences. True teaching has multiple steps: Instruction, testing, and learning. Lets use the example of a school teacher with math. The teacher instructs her class on simple addition. She then gives them a test. What happens if she never reveals the results to her students? They don't know if they did well or not. Okay, so now she gives them feedback. Some will still not have learned the lesson. Should the child advance to the next level? Or should that student tested again and again, and if necessary held back in that grade? Logic dictates that latter. Notice that the teacher doesn't jump right to the final punishment with the first failure (as your strawman presumed). Likewise, a loving mom will initially correct verbally, and upgrade as needed to some form of punishment (restriction or physical discipline).

      True love will bear the responsibility for properly training those placed in their care. Self love will say "It's too much trouble."

      January 25, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        @Live4Him,

        You don't get it. You think far, far too small. It isn't about the little, mundane things. It is so much bigger and deeper than that.

        I didn't get it either for a really long time. It took a lot of work to figure it out.

        I wasn't building a straw man either, I was jumping to the conclusion of your obvious analogy.

        January 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • Michael

      "Self love will say "It's too much trouble.""

      No, it doesn't only people who don't know what self love is would state such a dumb thing.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Roger

      "Logic dictates that latter. Notice that the teacher doesn't jump right to the final punishment with the first failure"

      As an adult it would, you break the law you go to jail.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Joey

      The idea that all humans are born bad just doesn't make any sense to me. In fact I think just the opposite is true. On any given day the good that people do in the world far outweighs the bad. There are far more people who go through life without doing anything evil than there are people who do do commit evil.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoughts : once you love yourself, you can love others for who they are without conflict or judgement.

      People are rarely in agreement with each other. This causes conflict – regardless of the level of love. We each act in a selfish manner, while sometimes controlling that selfish desire to the betterment of others.

      Second, judgment implies a determination of right and wrong. It is "wrong" for a child to blindly cross a busy street – because the child could be seriously hurt or killed. Likewise, its mother needs to make a judgment: Stop what I'm doing and correct the child or complete doing what I want to do. And, afterward, she will make yet another judgment – Was that the right decision?

      January 25, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Live4Him,

        People are rarely in agreement with each other. This causes conflict – regardless of the level of love. We each act in a selfish manner, while sometimes controlling that selfish desire to the betterment of others.

        So you're only two choices in a "conflict" are to behave selfishly or to give in? That explains a lot about your debate style.

        Real life is filled with other options. Rational conversation can resolve conflict to the betterment of all involved. Compromise can satisfy the needs involved. It is seldom an all or nothing matter.

        Second, judgment implies a determination of right and wrong. It is “wrong” for a child to blindly cross a busy street – because the child could be seriously hurt or killed.

        Is it actually "wrong" for a child to cross the street without looking? Wrong implies a moral decision. Instead, it is a lesson about awareness, about being mindful of others and your place in the moving spectrum of life.

        January 25, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Joey : The idea that all humans are born bad just doesn't make any sense to me.

      Have you ever raised any children (or pets)? For the sake of this discussion, I'll presume you have. Did you have to teach that child to be "bad" (i.e. selfish)? No. They were born selfish – no teaching needed.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Have you ever watched a group of pre-verbal toddlers playing? Just watched and not interfered?

        Sure, one may act selfishly and take a toy from another, but when the child stolen from starts to cry, you will see other toddlers give him their toys, and many times the thief will return it.

        The reason we see "selfishness" in children is because they are small and dependent, their entire world view is immediate and occupied with what is within their grasp. As soon as they are aware that their behavior impacts others, we see that behavior begin to change.

        January 25, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Roger : L4H: "Logic dictates that latter. Notice that the teacher doesn't jump right to the final punishment with the first failure" As an adult it would, you break the law you go to jail.

      So, you're speeding down the highway, 10 miles over the speed limit. You think you go to jail? Not at all. You get a fine. You're not executed (i.e. the ultimate punishment). Only if you persist to you go to jail for a short while. Next, they take your license away. Only if you continue to push this issue do you wind up in jail for much longer.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Thoughts

      “Second, judgment implies a determination of right and wrong. It is "wrong" for a child to blindly cross a busy street – because the child could be seriously hurt or killed. Likewise, its mother needs to make a judgment: Stop what I'm doing and correct the child or complete doing what I want to do. And, afterward, she will make yet another judgment – Was that the right decision?”

      You already have the answer you want from us without considering the other possibilities. A child might try to blindly cross the street but there are also responsible drivers all whom stopped so the child got across safely. Alternatively, there was a stranger on the corner that came up and ran out to help the child to get across safely so the child wasn’t killed. The mother will usually do what is in the best interest of the child but not always, it’s one of the reason our country has a high rate of child abuse and neglect. You are simply trying to control the conversation so you can try to imply your god is our parent, but your god is myth and we are all our own parents or child.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Roger

      "So, you're speeding down the highway, 10 miles over the speed limit. You think you go to jail? Not at all. You get a fine. You're not executed (i.e. the ultimate punishment). Only if you persist to you go to jail for a short while. Next, they take your license away. Only if you continue to push this issue do you wind up in jail for much longer."

      The fine is still a punishment.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      When you see your young child run into the street, do you:

      (A) Make your presence known and immediately punish the child, or
      (B) Tell the child that if they do that, they will pay for it after they die?

      January 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      More talk of this "training" of children. This exposes the true immorality of your position. Children aren't meant to be "trained" like a pet!

      January 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Joey

      I would argue that crossing the street blindly is neither right or wrong, but is instead dangerous.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Jordon

      "Did you have to teach that child to be "bad" (i.e. selfish)? No. They were born selfish – no teaching needed."

      Selfishness is a learned behavior.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Check

      Jordon,
      "Selfishness is a learned behavior."

      Selfishness is a basic human survival instinct. Yes, it can be taken too far; but, for example, it is recommended that you put on your own oxygen mask first if you wish to be able to assist others.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        I would argue that that isn't selfishness, but in actuality an expression of self-lessness.

        See, if you can't breath and function, you CAN'T help someone else.

        When I was first studying shamanism, the hardest thing for my mentor to get me to understand was self-care. It wasn't a part of my understanding of how the world worked, or how a care-taker behaved. But eventually he made me understand that if I am not at my best, how can I ever give my best to others?

        January 25, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Joey

      My child was not born selfish, that is just your religion talking.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Todd

      " They were born selfish – no teaching needed."

      I think you're abusing the definition of the word "selfish." Selfishness in newborns is not necessarily a negative; it may actually be a matter of survival. Since infants are incapable of caring for themselves they must be fairly demanding of others in order to make sure that their basic needs are met. For babies and young children selfishness in that context can be a matter of life and death. As children grow and achieve greater levels of maturity and self-sufficiency, it is generally society's expectation that they become less selfish and begin to develop more altruistic traits.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Damocles

      @live

      Selfishness is not necessarily wrong or bad. If the demands of work/family/friends get too be too much, it is not wrong to seek some alone time to clear your head, even though it could be considered selfish.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Jordon,

      Do you have children?

      January 25, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Check

      Joey,
      "My child was not born selfish"

      Did you adopt a Cabbage Patch doll or something?

      Did he ever wake you up at 2, 4, and 6 a.m. because *he* was hungry, with the only purpose of "feed me"?

      January 25, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Ian McPickles

      Life as an atheist is indeed good. Love, family, interesting things done and to do. Never been in jail. Prosperous.

      It's very different that the lie version the Christians put out. That whole "angry empty criminal degenerate" thing they spew is just pure slander.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • Joey

      What does selfishness even have to do with my original post? Does not wanting to starve to death somehow make one evil? I see no reason to associate the word "selfishness" with the word "evil".

      January 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • Todd

      "Did he ever wake you up at 2, 4, and 6 a.m. because *he* was hungry, with the only purpose of "feed me"?"

      That's about wanting to survive how is that selfish?

      January 25, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      "Did he ever wake you up at 2, 4, and 6 a.m. because *he* was hungry, with the only purpose of "feed me" "

      That's not selfish. Children regardless of species are born dependent on the parent. Basic human needs-food, shelter, clothing, etc can't be defined as selfish.

      And yes I have children and not once did I consider her being selfish for needing her basics met.

      When I personally define selfish, I define it as greed largely; as thinking of only one's self.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • The Real World

      Humans must have a certain degree of self-interest to survive. Call it selfishness if you want, but if individuals do not look out for themselves, then basically the species would have died off millenia ago. As a social species, we also need a certain degree of altruism. However, too much altruism will cause individual failure.

      Some people have more or less of either, but that range is normal genetic mutation that allows the species to adapt to different conditions. And both can be done to detrimental levels.

      So "selfishness" and "altruism" are both parts of our natural being and evolutionary process. Seen in religious terms, "selfishness" gets a total bad rap, but it is actually necessary in the right proportion. Religion has totally failed to make people less self-interested and more altruistic. All they did was create a false guilt. And if there is a deity, hard-wiring selfishness into humans makes no sense at all.

      So again we see that the secular explaination is far more satisfactory than the religious one.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • Check

      The Real World,

      Yes. Precisely. Thank you.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
  11. ME II

    "... deal with your enemies..." – Mars Hill Church tweet
    Interesting.

    January 25, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • Rational Libertarian

      What Christians lack in logic, they make up for in their ability to make money and their enemy smiting abilities.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:37 am |
    • Nature Of The Spec

      Mars Hill and other Evangelicals reject the Jesus of the Gospels...He said "Love your enemies..."

      Now, you just "deal" could mean everything from Chad-ing them to emptying a 30 round clip in them from your AR-15...your choice.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • ME II

      "Chad-ing" lol

      January 25, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
  12. meifumado

    Another great religionist lie. The Truth spoken in love is not hate. Hate is shown by the historical fact that Religious people have brutally tortured and murdered more people then any other group in the entire history of the world Truth= love, murder = hate. Hope that is not too difficult for you to grasp.

    January 25, 2013 at 10:38 am |
    • Live4Him

      So you admit that you hate religious people. Got it!

      January 25, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Akira

      Don't twist words. It is dishonest.
      Nowhere in this post does meifumando say "I hate religious people."

      January 25, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • fred

      If you include atheists like Mao, Poll Pot, and of course Stalin as religious people then you would be correct. I would have included Hitler but since he only claimed to be Christian I thought I would leave him in the non affiliated category.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • fred

      meifumado
      Just to clear the air do you hate religion or believers?

      January 25, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      "So you admit that you hate religious people. Got it!"

      How many lobotomies does one require to be as stupid as this?

      January 25, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • meifumado

      Oh come on now, Don't you all see what I did here?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
  13. Live4Him

    EVOLUTION IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

    Okay, we've discussed 1) The Case for Christianity, and 2) Dino Soft Tissue for some time now, so lets move on to a new topic. But first, lets get some key definitions in place before we start.

    1) Species: According to evolution, a specie is a kind of life that can reproduce its own kind.
    2) Transitional specie: According to evolution, a specie that is between two other species (i.e. A evolved into B, which evolved into C – so B is a transitional specie). Since, evolution holds that all species are capable of evolving, this means that all species, except the initial specie, are transitional species. For this discussion, I'll presume specie and transitional specie as the same.
    3) Speciation event: According to evolution, this is the process whereby a single species becomes two distinct species. It usually occurs over a period of time, but may be a cataclysmic event also.
    4) Law of Averages: a statistical principle that shows a more or less predictable ratio between the number of random trials of an event and its occurrences.
    5) Current number of identified species: approximately 1.9 million species. Some scientists predict this number may go as high as 50 million species eventually.

    Speciation events are presumed to be a random occurrence via the trial of producing offspring. When given sufficient time, two different species will have the same number of speciation events, albeit not necessarily at the same time. Applying this concept allows us to utilize mathematical concepts to determine the number of species that have lived on the earth over its history.

    The number 2 raised by a power will double the number X times. For example, 2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8, and 2^4 = 16. So, if we know the number of speciation events that occurred over evolution's history, we could calculate the number of species that have lived on the earth. Unfortunately, no evolutionist has ever ventured a guess at the number of speciation events between a modern specie and the first specie. However, Richard Dawkins has ventured an estimate on the number of speciation events that occurred to develop the modern eye. He postulated a number between 1,000 and 100,000 speciation events to develop the modern eye.

    For the sake of this discussion, I'll presume that there were 1,003 speciation events to develop the modern eye. This would mean that there should be one centillion (i.e. 1E303) transitional species. Not all species can leave fossil evidence, but if we presume that only a millionth of them would we would still have 1E297 transitional specie fossils.

    Since the upper limit of identified species is estimated to be 50 million (i.e. 50E6), then it becomes obvious that evolution is mathematically impossible since evolution predicts almost 1 centillion species in the development of the eye alone!

    January 25, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • Todd

      L4H you've been shown to be wrong over and over again so why do you continue to post crap? Come on dude, get an education.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • Live4Him

      Note: 2^1003 = 1E303 which is 1 centillion.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Live4Him", but all that is unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".

      January 25, 2013 at 10:06 am |
    • Science

      According to dictionary souls are on the bottom of your shoe.

      Glad evolution does not work for you.
      Better take it up with the US COURTS then.
      That is all that can be taught in pulic schools in the US. as fact !!!

      Have you seen Body World Cycle of Life??

      The Science show has been on display around the country, real DEAD humans and our cycle of LIFE.

      January 25, 2013 at 10:22 am |
    • Primewonk

      Specie is not the singular of species. Species is the singular of species. Specie is "coin of the realm". Only ignorant dumbfucker creationists use it this way.

      January 25, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • meifumado

      LOL Try again!

      January 25, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • meifumado

      "To argue with a creationist is like an argument between a reproductive scientist and someone who believes in the stork theory"

      January 25, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • Science

      @l4h you should read another book the bible is not fact.

      This is.
      Here Is a Human Being

      At the Dawn of Personal Genomics

      Misha Angrist
      I know how I work l4h good read to figure out how you work.

      Might help you !
      Peace

      January 25, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • Joey

      The short response to this post is: WRONG!

      January 25, 2013 at 10:50 am |
    • Live4Him

      WOW! So many people lacking critical thinking skills, who then must resort to mockery. I guess most people don't bother to read the books they claim to accept as scientific!

      January 25, 2013 at 10:58 am |
    • Live4Him

      Science : you should read another book the bible is not fact.

      Dawkins didn't write the Bible. He wrote the book "The Blind Watchmaker". Obviously, you've never read it.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Dr. Herman Rothschiller

      Gullible4Him – nuff said.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Joey : The short response to this post is: WRONG!

      And the reason is .... The silence is deafening.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Primewonk : Specie is not the singular of species.

      So, your position is that my post was logically correct, but you have objections to the spelling. Got it!

      January 25, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Science

      il4h t is happening if you believe it or not .

      Education on the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues in Personal Genetics

      http://www.pged.org/

      Peace

      January 25, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Todd : L4H you've been shown to be wrong over and over again

      It's amazing how many people claim that I've been shown to be in error in the past, but are unable to address any errors in the current topic. If there aren't any in this topic, what makes you think that people will believe there were errors in the past?

      January 25, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Science : il4h t is happening if you believe it or not .

      I thought faith wasn't a requirement! If it is happening now, then you could show where the 1 centillion missing transitional species are.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:13 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      Liv4him, before I even look into the math could you site the source you used to claim dawkin's estimated number of speciation events? I googled, ["richard dawkins"" speciation events" estimate 1000 100,000] and the very page you are reading right now comes up as the first result.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • sam

      I see someone feels desperate today...

      January 25, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Set aside the fact that L4H has no clue as to what 'it' speaks of and has proven that numerous times over. If evolution as L4H has claimed is false (hahahaha), then L4H must believe in incest-cause how the hell else was the earth populated? Funny how that little point gets forgotten so quickly when they attempt to defend their delusion.
      The ACLU fights every day against the teaching of Creationism in school's for a valid reason. The Dover Trial is a prime example.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • Science

      @l4h
      Have you seen Body World Cycle of Life??

      The Science show has been on display around the country, real DEAD humans and our cycle of LIFE

      No souls hanging around!!! In fact the it is on the bootom of your shoe the soul!!!

      Peace

      January 25, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • Live4Him

      @lunchbreaker : before I even look into the math could you site the source you used to claim dawkin's estimated number of speciation events?

      Sure, but I got it directly out of his book, so I won't claim that you can find it on the internet.

      The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, 1985, pp:77-78
      -----------–
      1) Could the human eye have arisen directly from no eye at all, in a single step?
      2) Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X?
      3) Is there a continuous series of Xs connecting the modern human eye to a state with no eye at all?

      [L4H NOTE: Dawkins readily asserts that such a complicated organ like an eye could not evolve in a single step. He stipulates that question #2 is possible. However, he answers #3 in the following manner.]

      It seems to me clear that the answer has to be yes, provided only that we allow ourselves a sufficiently large series of Xs. You might feel that 1,000 Xs is ample, but if you need more steps to make the total transition plausible in your mind, simply allow yourself to assume 10,000 Xs. And if 10,000 is not enough, allow yourself 100,000, and so on.
      [pg: 78]

      January 25, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Evolution is Impossible

      And yet here we are.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Truth Prevails : L4H must believe in incest-cause how the hell else was the earth populated?

      Actually, you do too. You just don't realize it. Once the human species evolved, one man and one woman, they couldn't reproduce with their predecessors! So, who did they mate with?

      January 25, 2013 at 11:30 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Evolution is Impossible : And yet here we are.

      Exactly. We got here the same way matter, energy and time got here – through a creator.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Seriously?

      This right here proves you don't know what you are talking about.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      From your Dawkins quote, he is talking about "changes". You are talking about speciation, which is not the same thing. Changes can and do happen within a species population that do not cause a speciation.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Science : No souls hanging around

      What experiment did you conduct to provide evidence of this posit? After all, how would you detect them? They're undetectable when the person is alive, you you claim to be able ot detect them afterward. Nope, not plausible.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : From your Dawkins quote, he is talking about "changes".

      According to you. But, how often do we see similar changes occuring today without said speciation event? They're not even considered possible outside of a given range without said speciation events. Therefore, Dawkins clearly was discussion speciation events in his book. Obviously, you didn't read it. Buy a copy or check it out of your local library. Read some and then come back and discuss what Dawkins referred to here.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Science

      Yoy should go look at all the DEAD REAL humans hanging at the science museum your self.

      Talk to an undertaker once.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Pete

      Nobody with a working understanding of Evolution would claim that a parent would give birth to a new species because that is not how it works.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Science

      Evolution of the Eye

      Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations. Starting with a simple patch of light sensitive cells, Nilsson's model "evolves" until a clear image is produced. Examples of organisms that still use the intermediary forms of vision are also shown. From Evolution: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"

      Credits: © 2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

      January 25, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • myweightinwords

      You clearly do not understand evolution.

      One need look no further than a flu virus for evidence of it. The larger the organism, the longer it takes the many, many, minute mutations to result in a visible change.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:45 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      According to you.
      "But, how often do we see similar changes occuring today without said speciation event? They're not even considered possible outside of a given range without said speciation events. Therefore, Dawkins clearly was discussion speciation events in his book."

      What?

      Immediately following your quote above:

      "And if 10,000 is not enough, allow yourself 100,000, and so on. Obviously the available time imposes an upper ceiling on this game, for there be can only one X per generation."
      (The blind Watchmaker, p78, )

      A "generation" is not a speciation.

      Perhaps you should read more than your own quote-mined sources.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:47 am |
    • WASP

      @him: i lack the words to be able to describ the shear amount of ignorance you exude from your posts.
      can you seriously be that uninformed?
      are you truly that much of a brainwashed follower that you can't open another book of highered learning and understand what it's pages say?
      it's uneducated fools like you that make me fearful of what the future holds. wanna know why?
      you folks don't even care to study science unless it agrees with the dogma you have been taught since childhood.
      that ignorance puts all others around you in danger. don't believe me?
      why should you save your child from a house fire if they are going to live with god and be eternally happy? shouldn't you allow god to recieve their spirits?
      wouldn't saving your child from death be going against "god's will"? if he permitted the fire, then he meant for your children to "return to him."
      what if you pulling your children out of that fire angers your god and he decides being all powerful mind you; that you have here by condemned them to hell seeing you used your "free-will" to save them when he wanted them back?

      January 25, 2013 at 11:47 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him, Do you know how ridiculous that is? Evolution happened and happens. Some mechanisms may not be fully understood but it is a fact. No amount of your fundie pseusoscience changes that. If evolution could not happen explain why our DNA shows fish, mammals, and apes in our past.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • ME II

      oops
      "there be can " should be "there can be"

      January 25, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Pete : Nobody with a working understanding of Evolution would claim that a parent would give birth to a new species because that is not how it works.

      WOW! You really are uninformed! Radiation passes through an egg, mutating some of the genes. This mutated egg then grows up into an adult. And thus, we "see" evolution in action – Only we never do. Research the Fruit Fly experiments, where scientist tried to simulate evolution over a million years or more. Only, all the changes never resulted in a species that would survive in the wild without returning to the original configuration.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      L4H: We do not know that incest is what started our species....care to site the studies proving otherwise?
      My point is that the creation story is bat shit crazy and that is only a small part of the reason why. You can believe in it all you wish but it doesn't make it fact.
      Evolution can be backed with numerous documents and much evidence...creationism has nothing more than the bible to back it.
      Before defending a 2000 year old story, you should look at the facts from a broader spectrum. Tell us where else we can find the peer reviewed evidence to back your creationism crap.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Pete

      What? Also, I don't know if what you said about fruit flies is true or not (knowing you probably not) but if it is that wouldn't be all that surprising as the new fruit flies would have evolved so that they could survive their new surroundings which were probably much different than "the wild" thus they would no longer be able to survive in "the wild"

      January 25, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Immediately following your quote above: "And if 10,000 is not enough, allow yourself 100,000, and so on. Obviously the available time imposes an upper ceiling on this game, for there be can only one X per generation."

      His point is that speciation events can only occur on generational boundaries, not in the same individual.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      Thank you for the reference L4H.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • Live4Him's Recipe

      refutation of theory – i don't see any facts – He is making me look over this way
      it's part theory and part fact
      refutation of theory – i don't see any facts – He is making me look over this way
      it's part theory and part fact
      refutation of theory – i don't see any facts – He is making me look over this way

      Therefore, I am Gullible4Him.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Pete : that wouldn't be all that surprising as the new fruit flies would have evolved so that they could survive their new surroundings which were probably much different than "the wild" thus they would no longer be able to survive in "the wild"

      So, you admit that evolution isn't possible in the wild. Got it! The "more evolved species can only survive if it's creator bring food to it.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Pete

      No, I don't admit that.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • Science

      Go take a boold test l4h figure it out maybe !
      peace

      January 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "Radiation passes through an egg, mutating some of the genes. This mutated egg then grows up into an adult."
      A single mutation does not necessarily mean a new species. In fact, if a child is different enough from it's parent to create a new reproductive species, then that new species would not survive since it would have no reproductive opportunities.

      Evolution is the accu.mulation of multiple changes over multiple generations. As Dawkins describes in, I think, The Greatest Show On Earth, 'rabbits always have rabbits', or something to that effect. A new species is separated from its ancestor species by multiple generations of small changes, not a single generation.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @lunchbreaker : Thank you for the reference L4H.

      No problem. I can usually provide a reference, but not necessarily on the same day.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "His point is that speciation events can only occur on generational boundaries, not in the same individual."

      Actually, no. Dawkins is talking about the development of the eye, not speciation.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : Actually, no. Dawkins is talking about the development of the eye, not speciation.

      You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. You can give facts to an atheist, but he is still an atheist.

      January 25, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "@ME II : Actually, no. Dawkins is talking about the development of the eye, not speciation.

      You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. You can give facts to an atheist, but he is still an atheist."

      Are you claiming that each change in the eye, Dawkins' "X", requires a new species?

      January 25, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Akira

      "So, you admit that evolution isn’t possible in the wild. Got it! The “more evolved species can only survive if it’s creator bring food to it."
      More twisting of words, and a leaping to a conclusion he didn't make.
      Dishonest.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      If a speciation event is defined as 1 species becoming 2, then 1003 speciation events would result in 2*(1003) species, not 1^1003.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Primewonk

      Live4Him wrote, "So, your position is that my post was logically correct, but you have objections to the spelling. Got it!"

      No. My position is that you are a vacuous puppet-brained moron who is too fucking stupid to even understand the most basic of definitions involved here.

      My point is that your post is an excellent example of what happens when ignorant fundiot nutters choose to get their "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world. The problem with you dumbfuckers is that "Pastor Dave" is just as big an idiot as you are.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Joey

      My child was not born selfish that is just your religion talking.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Joey

      wrong place.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      @L4H

      Learn some math – if there are 1003 speciation events from the first form to the last – that is exactly 1004 intermediate species (including the original), and not 2^1003. Every event creates a single new species – not 2.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • fred

      Primewonk
      There a many excellent scientists who believe in God. Actually there are more scientists that believe in God then there are atheists in this entire world. Those who are intellectually honest realize that science and preachers like Dave are addressing two different areas of existence. I am sorry you have chosen to not only limit your horizons but restrict you logic and reason as well.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Yes fred, keep lyin for Jeebus. I'm sure that will get you into heaven.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • sammy

      Too bad all the top scientists in fields related to issues that would shed light on religion happen to be atheists freddie boy.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      The lack of critical thinking is rampant -
      Species A becomes Species B (2 total species)
      Species B becomes Species C (3 total species)
      ...

      Each event is a single new species, with the older (parent) species still in existence (at least for some time). So if an organ like the eye "needs" a thousand steps (mutations) – that is 1001 species.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • fred

      sammy
      Two words: Isaac Newton
      "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done" (Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.)

      January 25, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      And Stephen Hawking is an atheist, who is also smarter with better access to technology than Newton. So what's your point? Oh that's right, you had no point, you just enjoy using logical fallacies to fail in every post you make.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      Hey L4H!

      I refuted your argument (using very simple math and logic) – any comment?

      Now where the powers of 2 do come in:

      If you assume a 50/50 chance of finding fossil evidence of any of these 1000 transitional forms, then the chance of finding fossil evidence of the entire chain of speciation is 1/ (2^1000). This is why scientists cannot "prove" the evolutionary development of the eye (and we know that the real chance of finding fossil evidence is much lower than 50%).

      January 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • Joey

      It's not surprising that Issac Newton believed in god he also believed in alchemy. Both are magic.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      Complete nonsense. See what happens when you try to lie with numbers?

      January 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • fred

      hawaiiguest
      Chill and read before you post:

      Sammy:
      Too bad all the top scientists in fields related to issues that would shed light on religion happen to be atheists freddie boy.

      fred:sammy
      Two words: Isaac Newton
      "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done"

      hawaiiguest
      @fred
      So what's your point? Oh that's right, you had no point, you just enjoy using logical fallacies to fail in every post you make.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
    • ME II

      @My Dog is a Jealous Dog,
      "Each event is a single new species, with the older (parent) species still in existence (at least for some time). So if an organ like the eye "needs" a thousand steps (mutations) – that is 1001 species."

      I don't think you went far enough. One change/mutation does not equal one species. One change at a minimum equals one generation, but not a new species.
      For example, in a ring species the neighbors can still breed, but at least two at the ends cannot, making them a different species.
      ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species )

      January 25, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      "Each event is a single new species, with the older (parent) species still in existence (at least for some time). So if an organ like the eye "needs" a thousand steps (mutations) – that is 1001 species."

      Mutation =/= Speciation

      Go look up the 30+ concepts of speciation used by cladisticians, and try again.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • ME II

      @TANK!!!!,
      "Mutation =/= Speciation"

      T' anks!

      January 25, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      My point is that in a speciation event, one species becomes two. But it is not 2 new species, only one. The other is the original parent species. So the number of new species in a chain of 1000 speciation events is not 2^1000, but simply 1000.

      L4H's math is doing multiplication where addition is the correct operation. This is an error in his mathematics, not the definition of species, speciation events, or mutations.

      Most mutations do not result in viable (let alone reproductively successful) offspring – and the great abortionist in the sky takes care of these non-viable mutations.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      You forgot the part where I pointed to Hawking. Cherry picking again fred? Gueess you really do think dishonesty for Jeebus is ok.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • sammy

      ah hah hah – leave it to fred to mention an old fart like Newton. work up some numbers on today's scientists who deal with creation theory fred. you're too much, really.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      I would like to see Live4Him actually admit to the math mistake in their argument, and promise not to use this ridiculous argument ever again.

      Maybe I am asking for too much.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • Gir

      @Live4Him

      I'm still waiting for you to prove that you've read most of the creation myths out there.

      January 25, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • ME II

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog,
      "This is an error in his mathematics, not the definition of species, speciation events, or mutations."
      I don't disagree that there is a math error. I think there is likely both a math error and a definition error.
      In other words, he's making the wrong calculations on the wrong numbers.

      "Most mutations do not result in viable (let alone reproductively successful) offspring – and the great abortionist in the sky takes care of these non-viable mutations."

      However, this is not why "mutation =/= speciation" (@TANK!!!). A single species, individual or population, can have mutations, viable mutations, and still remain the same species. Not all viable mutations create a new species, and one might argue that no single "viable" mutation can create a "viable" new species.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • fred

      sammy
      " 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

      You can get the list here: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

      January 25, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      But how many are named Steve?

      "NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism.""
      http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

      January 25, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @fred

      Yes 100 scientists in 2001 doubt evolution. Sooooo amazingly relevant. Wait, never mind, it's the opposite.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
  14. Archibald Smythe-Pennington, III

    Do I detect a warming trend? It's about 20 degrees warmer presently at this time today in International Falls, MN than it was yesterday. And yet thermometer there now only reads 3 above zero.

    Somewhat like Ravel's Bolero, Narada Michael Walden's "The Dance of Life" title track from 1979 swells from quiet to grande. The percussion god and the guitar god are at war by the end. Who won? (At least listen from the 4 minute mark on to catch the height of the battle.) Possibly one of the top jazz instrumental fusion pieces of all time. Guitar mastery courtesy of Corrado Rustici.

    This was from Walden's fourth album that pushed him into the pop charts in 1979, with "I shoulda loved ya" and "Tonight I'm alright" played over and over that summer.

    He has influenced many other artists.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narada_Michael_Walden
    http://www.nmwproductions.com/
    http://naradamichaelwaldenfoundation.com/

    January 25, 2013 at 9:08 am |
    • meifumado

      Thanks again for the tunes!

      January 25, 2013 at 9:45 am |
  15. Robert Brown

    People who are ruled by their desires think only of themselves. Everyone who is ruled by the Holy Spirit thinks about spiritual things. If our minds are ruled by our desires, we will die. But if our minds are ruled by the Spirit, we will have life and peace. Our desires fight against God, because they do not and cannot obey God’s laws. If we follow our desires, we cannot please God.

    January 25, 2013 at 8:21 am |
    • WASP

      UMMMMM ONE WORD......................................................FAIL.

      January 25, 2013 at 8:26 am |
    • Mirosal

      How can you please something that's never, EVER, been shown to exist? You'd get the exact same results if you prayed to Apollo at the Oracle of Delphi.

      January 25, 2013 at 8:27 am |
    • Science

      Sorry Robert it does not work that way
      Thumbs to you
      RB it is happening if you believe it or not .

      Education on the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues in Personal Genetics

      http://www.pged.org/

      Peace

      January 25, 2013 at 8:29 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Robert
      I'll go along with the premist that people are inherently selfish becuase we instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group.
      And it sure does take a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
      Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.
      I would hope that an emotionally mature adult doesn't cite fear and/or hope of reward as their primary motivation for socially positive behaviour. Such inventives are useful and effective for indoctrinating children into a particular culture, but grown ups should be able to reason out the benefits of cooperation and that effective cooperation is contingent on treating each other with respsect.

      January 25, 2013 at 8:29 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Doc Vestibule,

      Can’t we all just get along?

      I’m glad you hope so and I do too.

      This really isn’t about our treatment of others.

      It is about the flesh vs the spirit, submitting your will to his, resisting animal appet.ites in favor of spiritual things.

      If we think on spiritual things we won’t yield to the flesh and sin, which leads to death. The wages of sin is death. Sin is condemned in the flesh.

      If we think on spiritual things and yield to the spirit we have life and peace.

      Live in peace.

      January 25, 2013 at 8:48 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Good morning, Robert.

      I wonder: If you are ruled by a desire to please God and you can't know if God is pleased, then how can you come up with actions that satisfy that desire? God may be pleased by one of the shirts in your closet. How can you choose its favorite?

      Also, do you imagine that people are ruled by pathological desires if not by God? Most people are ruled by ordinary desires, like the desire to make the make their families healthy and safe. We will die for that? (Actually, we die because it is inevitable that we will die. We aren't exactly built to not die, you know?)

      January 25, 2013 at 8:49 am |
    • truth be told

      Mr Brown the only way to get along with the hate filled atheist is to allow them to kill you as Cain killed Abel. Self deceived atheists bear the mark of Cain and are useless in this world and the next. Here they cause pain, suffering and mass murder there they will receive their just reward. You are chosen they by their own vicious nature are not. There is no reconciliation but the cross and they have long since rejected it.

      January 25, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      Mr. Brown, are you saying that unless I accept YOUR God I am a selfish person?

      January 25, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Robert
      The sticky point is that your definition of "spirituality" only encompasses an appollonian view.
      Can you accept that dionysian spiritual enlightment is also possible ?

      January 25, 2013 at 9:00 am |
    • Science

      Robert Brown good question for you.

      Have you seen Body World Cycle of Life??

      The Science show has been on display around the country, real DEAD humans and our cycle of LIFE.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:03 am |
    • WASP

      @brown: death can be classified in a couple catagories depending on which view you take.
      1) the medical definition of death is the person no longer has brain function. aka brain dead.
      2) scientifically death is the result (natural death) of the imperfect reproduction of cells within our bodies causing organ failure over time.

      religion gives hope of "immortality" for a part of what you are, but not the whole. that's all religion can give seeing anything of substance can't be proven by religious leaders or their followers; the reason for the whole "wait and see" thing.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:03 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Good morning, Tom. I hope you and yours are all well today.

      The way to please God is to believe him, because if you believe, you will want to obey.

      No, I don’t think we will die for wanting health and safety for those we love, especially if we know the source of their health and safety.

      The sins of the flesh are more along the lines of pride, lust, and covetousness.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:06 am |
    • Science

      No souls on display with the dead humans n (REAL), just deplited carbon. The End

      January 25, 2013 at 9:11 am |
    • Science

      Peace Robert

      Maybe when the dead human display comes to your area go learn something no souls are hanging around ..

      Peace

      January 25, 2013 at 9:17 am |
    • Science

      That was the question I heard most from the children when we where viewing display. where are the souls Mom Dad ?

      January 25, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Robert Brown", but "God", "Holy Spirit", and "Spirit" are all elements of mythology, therefore your assertions are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".

      January 25, 2013 at 9:33 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Lunchbreaker,

      No, believers and nonbelievers are capable of either, selfishness or selflessness, good or bad.

      More along the lines of the Holy Spirit is a good cure or prevention for someone who would otherwise behave selfishly.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:33 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Doc Vestibule,

      Possible yes, but I would advise against it.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Science,

      No, I haven’t seen it.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:41 am |
    • Robert Brown

      WASP,

      True and when the bible speaks of death it also has more than one meaning, physical death of the body or the flesh and spiritual death.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:42 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Science,

      The soul goes back to the one (God) who gave it.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:44 am |
    • meifumado

      Why would i want to please a non existent being?

      January 25, 2013 at 9:46 am |
    • Science

      Robert you should read another book the bible is not fact.

      This is.
      Here Is a Human Being

      At the Dawn of Personal Genomics

      Misha Angrist
      I know how I work Robert good read to figure out how you work.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:51 am |
    • Science

      Come on Robert god(s} the soul is on the bottom of my shoe says the dictionary .
      Peace

      January 25, 2013 at 10:00 am |
    • meifumado

      What if the the desire that rules people is the desire to be good to others? Then they are not thinking only of themselves.

      January 25, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • myweightinwords

      May I ask what you mean by "ruled by their desires"? It's a pretty vague concept without a little explanation.

      I mean, currently I desire another cup of coffee. If I get another cup of coffee, does that mean my desire rules me?
      I also currently desire a warm bed and snuggling with someone I love. If I realize that as a responsible adult I can't actually have that right at this moment, and must be at work instead, does that mean my desires don't rule me?

      January 25, 2013 at 10:45 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Meifumado,

      Sure people can desire to do good and of course if they are doing good for the benefit of others then they are not being selfish. I think the context here is if you are consumed with the desire to obtain pleasure for yourself then that is clearly selfish.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Myweightinwords,

      "ruled by their desires" Pride, lust of the flesh, covetousness, greed, something much stronger than I’d rather being doing something else, more importantly something outside the will and purpose of God.

      The spirit and the flesh are at war. There are three enemies of the believer the flesh, the world, and the devil. This is just focusing on one of those, the flesh.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • WASP

      @brown: good that we can agree on the physical death being fact. the whole "spiritual death" part is speculation seeing "the soul" can't be seen, nor tested to exsist.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Wasp,

      A 1990’s European medical study of terminal patients who died experienced weight loss of 1/3000th oz. at death indicating that the soul may have physical properties.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Which God?

      RB, every time you open your mouth, I think "this guy can't get any dumber." Then you post this. You truly are an ignoramus.

      January 25, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Damocles

      @RB

      Could that study be saying that your last breath weighs 1/3,000 of an oz?

      January 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      "A 1990’s European medical study of terminal patients who died experienced weight loss of 1/3000th oz. at death indicating that the soul may have physical properties."

      Might that not be the weight of the last expelled breath?

      January 25, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • Damocles

      @Mrs

      That's what I said! :)

      January 25, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Science

      RB maybe gasping for the last breath ?
      Peace RB

      January 25, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      Damocles: really? GMTA! And I didn't see that, otherwise I would have attributed it to you, and agreed! ;)

      January 25, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • Mrs. Pepperpot

      Damocles: you sure did, right before me! My phone is woefully slow...

      January 25, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Damocles

      @Mrs

      Great minds thinking alike and whatnot.

      January 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      "A 1990’s European medical study of terminal patients who died experienced weight loss of 1/3000th oz. at death indicating that the soul may have physical properties."

      Are you serious?

      January 25, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
  16. truth be told

    All atheist types are liars, it is important to recognize this Truth and put their filthy comments in a proper perspective.

    January 25, 2013 at 8:02 am |
    • midwest rail

      Morning, cap'n !

      January 25, 2013 at 8:02 am |
    • WASP

      @tool be told: you know anger will be a great place in hell for you. enjoy :)

      January 25, 2013 at 8:04 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      TBT: Does your imaginary friend not tell you not to judge and not lie? Oh well, it's your hell, you can enjoy it. You give the truly good christians a bad name.

      January 25, 2013 at 8:32 am |
    • truth be told

      Thanks to the bottom feeders who responded and added proof to my comment. Consider this Truth spoken in love as all Truth is – before you self deceived atheists rejected God, He may have rejected you. Think how good this world can be without YOU and how much better mankind will be when you are gone. Think again is there anything you could do today to make this world a finer place?

      January 25, 2013 at 8:53 am |
    • Pete

      "All atheist types are liars,"

      More lies from the xtians – 140!

      January 25, 2013 at 8:56 am |
    • Mirosal

      of course ... we can hack into CNN's system, get your IP address, and show up at your front door... simple isn't it? Then what will you do?

      January 25, 2013 at 8:56 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      So TBT, are you going to encourage suicide today?

      January 25, 2013 at 9:00 am |
    • truth be told

      Probably make a fortune in civil court after your arrest For the threat and crimes you propose, or might just drop you in your tracks as well.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:04 am |
    • truth be told

      Lunchbreaker,atheists are too self absorbed to ever do anything that would benefit humanity.

      January 25, 2013 at 9:06 am |
    • Pete

      "atheists are too self absorbed to ever do anything that would benefit humanity."

      More lies from the xtians – 143!

      January 25, 2013 at 9:11 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Additionally, "truth be told", all of your assertions to date have been unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".

      January 25, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • meifumado

      Consider this Truth spoken in love as all Truth is – before you self deceived religionists rejected truth, intelligence may have rejected you. Think how good this world can be without YOU and how much better mankind will be when you are gone. Think again is there anything you could do today to make this world a finer place?

      January 25, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      How do you like that? TBT called me by name. Don't the rest of ya'll be hatin now ;)

      January 25, 2013 at 10:00 am |
    • truth be told

      Another great atheist lie. The Truth spoken in love is not hate. Hate is shown by the historical fact that atheists have brutally tortured and murdered more people in the last 100 years than were killed in all previous centuries. Truth= love, murder = hate. Hope that is not too difficult for you to grasp.

      January 25, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. There is no data indicating that populations under ruthless dictators of past regimes have committed atrocities in the name of atheism. There is data indicating that segments of populations under different religions have committed atrocities in the name of their respective religions. Your truth value, "truth be told", remains at zero.

      January 25, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • Which God?

      truth be trolled's ramblings about his sky fairy is starting to sound like that pompous idiot lionly. Kissing cousins? One wonders

      January 25, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
  17. WASP

    http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people
    (this is just remarkable)

    "But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

    As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

    January 25, 2013 at 7:47 am |
  18. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Pray without ceasing in 2013
    Prayer changes things

    January 25, 2013 at 7:39 am |
    • WASP

      @thing: yes pray none stop this whole year....................
      no eating or potty breaks for you until god tells you that's enough prayer. :)

      January 25, 2013 at 7:50 am |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!

      January 25, 2013 at 8:42 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".

      January 25, 2013 at 9:35 am |
    • meifumado

      Can you ask the religonuts to prey for you to post something new?

      January 25, 2013 at 9:59 am |
  19. AtheistSteve

    Just wait.
    A new story which just aired on CNN will no doubt soon appear on this blog. I didn't get all the details but it seems a Catholic hospital somewhere in the US is being sued. It seems the mother who was 7 months pregnant died and the hospital didn't perform an emergency C-section to save the baby(s). They are using the state law as defence by stating that the fetus isn't considered a person. I really want to see the full written report but at first glance it sure looks like the height of hypocrisy.

    January 25, 2013 at 7:05 am |
    • Science

      Not good
      Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For ...

      http://www.eggdonor.com/.../catholic-hospital-fetuses-people-sued-wrongf...

      14 hours ago – Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For Wrongful Death ... guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple's ... The procedure likely would not have saved the mother, a testifying ... the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by ...

      January 25, 2013 at 7:26 am |
    • midwest rail

      http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people
      Here's the story from Colorado.

      January 25, 2013 at 7:34 am |
    • meifumado

      Just goes to show its all about making and keeping those dollars, Religion at its finest!

      January 25, 2013 at 9:57 am |
  20. End Religion

    if (!religion):
    world = (world – religious_violence);
    endif;

    January 25, 2013 at 6:08 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      while(there is religion in the world){
      vigilance;
      }

      January 25, 2013 at 8:52 am |
1 2 3

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.