home
RSS
Coalition of Christians pushes Congress to protect poor from forced spending cuts
February 25th, 2013
05:13 PM ET

Coalition of Christians pushes Congress to protect poor from forced spending cuts

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – A coalition of noteworthy Christian leaders and thinkers is asking President Barack Obama and congressional leaders to protect the poor from the forced spending cuts that are due to take effect this week.

The group’s open letter frames budget decisions as a moral question for lawmakers and asks them to stop the political brinksmanship.

“Important choices must be made: we must weigh the benefits of tax credits for low-income people and tax breaks for high income people; of nutrition assistance to low-income families and subsidies to agricultural businesses,” the letter says. “Congress can and must develop a balanced and thoughtful path forward that protects the most vulnerable and preserves economic opportunity.”

The group is called Circle of Protection,  and it goes on to ask lawmakers to “maintain a Circle of Protection around effective programs focused on hungry and poor people in our country and around the world.”

Founded nearly two years ago, the groups boasts a politically diverse group of almost 100 Christian leaders, including Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Jim Wallis, president of the group Sojourners.

Wallis, who for many years has helped organize Christian coalitions to lobby Congress on issues such as immigration and poverty, said he is prepared to harness the power of the Christian congregations for the issues of poverty and the budget.

“People of faith are saying that what the Bible tells us that a nation will be judged by how it treats the poorest and most vulnerable,” Wallis told CNN. “It doesn’t say it will be judged by its military, its gross domestic product or by its popular culture. That is the principle that we all have to obey.”

On top of sending this letter to the leaders in Congress and the White House, Wallis said the group will ask pastors around the country to engage their congregation on the issue.

The reasons for Wallis’ passion on the issue: his belief that a budget is a moral issue.

“These are moral choices that they are making,” Wallis said. “We are saying that you have to be self-conscience about your choices. These are choices about people, and we have said since the start that the budget is a moral document. It says, who is important and who is not, what is important and what is not.”

If Congress and the White House don’t act on forced spending cuts, known in Washington as the sequester, across-the-board budget cuts will be made to domestic and defense programs starting March 1. The triggered cuts, which originated from the White House in 2011 as Congress faced debate over raising the debt ceiling, were only supposed to be enacted if the two sides couldn’t agree on a deficit-reduction plan.

So far, no agreement has been reached.

What do the cuts mean for most people? Some 4 million home-bound and disabled seniors may have to go without supper this year because of cuts to Meals on Wheels programs, some 70,000 children from lower-income families will not be able to enroll for preschools and day care centers run by Head Start programs this fall and on average, it would mean a cut of $400 for nearly 3.8 million Americans.

For members of the Circle of Protection, these issues are personal, says Wallis.

“We are pastors and faith leaders who know the people are that are going to be hurt if you cut Head Start or food stamps,” Wallis concluded. “We know their names, the moms and kids and dads.”

- CNNMoney’s Jennifer Liberto contributed to this report.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Christianity • Politics • Poverty

soundoff (562 Responses)
  1. yeppie

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a11MftLZDS4&w=640&h=360]

    February 26, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
  2. Ponyboy Garfunkel

    Just so long as we don’t cut military spending, ever. Cause if we never cut military spending, we’re bound to be safer. Right? We’re scared. And there’s plenty to be scared of, what with man’s rotten nature and all. Maybe we should spend even more on the military. It’s bound to make us safer. Right? To heck with the poor!

    February 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Why not just have the poor join the military. Solve the problem that way...Oh wait, to a large extent that is already happening.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • Reality

      Our War on Terror and Aggression:

      An update (or how we are spending or how we have spent the USA taxpayers’ money to eliminate global terror and aggression)

      The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent and Not So Recent Body Count

      As the koranic/mosque driven acts of terror and horror continue:

      The Muslim Conquest of India – 11th to 18th century

      ■"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "

      and the 19 million killed in the Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C by Muslims.

      and more recently

      1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

      1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

      2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

      3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US troops killed in action, 3,480 and 928 in non combat roles. 102,522 – 112,049 Iraqi civilians killed as of 9/16/2011/, mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

      4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

      5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

      6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

      7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

      8. UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

      9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

      10) – Afghanistan: US troops 1,385 killed in action, 273 killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror

      11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.

      12) 38 Russian citizens killed on March 29, 2010 by Muslim women suicide bombers.

      13) The May 28, 2010 attack on a Islamic religious minority in Pakistan, which have left 98 dead,

      14) Lockerbie is known internationally as the site where, on 21 December 1988, the wreckage of Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a terrorist bomb. In the United Kingdom the event is referred to as the Lockerbie disaster, the Lockerbie bombing, or simply Lockerbie. Eleven townspeople were killed in Sherwood Crescent, where the plane's wings and fuel tanks plummeted in a fiery explosion, destroying several houses and leaving a huge crater, with debris causing damage to a number of buildings nearby. The 270 fatalities (259 on the plane, 11 in Lockerbie) were citizens of 21 nations.

      15 The daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings in the terror world of Islam.

      16) Bombs sent from Yemen by followers of the koran which fortunately were discovered before the bombs were detonated.

      17) The killing of 58 Christians in a Catholic church in one of the latest acts of horror and terror in Iraq.

      18) Moscow airport suicide bombing: 35 dead, 130 injured. January 25, 2011.

      19) A Pakistani minister, who had said he was getting death threats because of his stance against the country's controversial blasphemy law, was shot and killed Wednesday, 3/2/2011

      20) two American troops killed in Germany by a recently radicalized Muslim, 3/3/2011

      21) the kidnapping and apparent killing of a follower of Zoraster in the dark world of Islamic Pakistan.

      22) Shariatpur, Bangladesh (CNN 3/30/2011) - Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70 and died a week later.

      23) "October 4, 2011, 100 die as a truck loaded with drums of fuel exploded Tuesday at the gate of compound housing several government ministries on a busy Mogadishu street. It was the deadliest single bombing carried out by the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia since their insurgency began. "

      o 24) Mon Jun 4, 2012 10:18am EDT
      o
      BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A suicide bomber detonated an explosive-packed car outside a Shi'ite Muslim office in central Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 26 people and wounding more than 190 in an attack bearing the hallmarks of Iraq's al Qaeda affiliate.
      The bombing on a Shi'ite religious office comes at a sensitive time, with the country's fractious Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs locked in a crisis that threatens to unravel their power-sharing deal and spill into sectarian tensions."

      25) BURGAS, Bulgaria | Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:27am EDT

      (Reuters) – A suicide bomber carried out an attack that killed seven people in a bus transporting Israeli tourists in Bulgaria, the interior minister said on Thursday, and Israel said Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants were to blame.

      26 ) September 12, 2012
      U.S. AMBASSADOR KILLED
      Envoy to Libya dies in rocket blast

      Continued below:
      Other elements of our War on Terror and Aggression:

      -Operation Iraqi Freedom- The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops killed in action, 3,480 and 928 in non combat roles as of 09/15/2011/, 102,522 – 112,049 Iraqi civilians killed as of 9/16/2011/, mostly due to suicide bombers, land mines and bombs of various types, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

      – Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan: US troops 1,385 killed in action, 273 killed in non-combat situations as of 09/15/2011. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed mostly due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror,

      – Sa-dd-am, his sons and major he-nchmen have been deleted. Sa-dd-am's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes. Kuwait was saved.

      – Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

      – North Korea is still u-ncivil but is contained.

      – Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

      – The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords. Unfortunately the Annapolis Peace Conference was not successful. And unfortunately the recent events in Gaza has put this situation back to “squ-are one”. And this significant stupidity is driven by the mythical foundations of both religions!!!

      – – Fa-na–tical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

      – Timothy McVeigh was exe-cuted. Terry Nichols escaped the death penalty twice because of deadlocked juries. He was sentenced to 161 consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole,[3][7] and is incarcerated in ADX Florence, a super maximum security prison near Florence, Colorado. He shares a cellblock that is commonly referred to as "Bombers Row" with Ramzi Yousef and Ted Kaczynski

      – Eric Ru-dolph is spending three life terms in pri-son with no par-ole.

      – Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

      – Islamic Sudan, Dar-fur and So-malia are still terror hot spots.
      – The terror and tor-ture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Ra-dovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war – charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

      The capture of Ratko Mladić: (Serbian Cyrillic: Ратко Младић, pronounced [râtkɔ mlǎːditɕ], born 12 March 1943[1][2]) is an accused war criminal and a former Bosnian Serb military leader. On May 31, 2011, Mladić was extradited to The Hague, where he was processed at the detention center that holds suspects for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[3] His trial began on 3 June 2011.

      – the bloody terror brought about by the Ja-panese, Na-zis and Co-mmunists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

      – Bin Laden was executed for crimes against humanity on May 1, 2011

      – Ditto for Anwar al-Awlaki on September 30, 2011

      – Ditto for Abu Yahya al-Libi on June 5, 2012

      February 26, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
  3. Meredith

    I absoloutely loved to hear this story. It is truly in the footsteps of Jesus to take care of the poor. I feel that many Christians, while intentions are good, have lost sight of the fact that Jesus repeatedly spoke about taking care of the poor. Many Christians are so caught up in conservative politics that they cannot see that part of their beliefs are backwards from what Jesus would have wanted. He spoke more about the poor than he did about gay marriage or about birth control. He spread love and condemmend judgement

    February 26, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • Kee

      Nicely put. The true gospel of Jesus Christ goes against the status quo, not support it.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Kee
      which god spell was the true one again...oh yeah, none of them because none can be verified.
      If you said the one you believe to be true, that would not be a lie, to say it is the truth is a lie and makes baby jesus cry.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      So you have sold all your goods and given the proceeds to the poor then, have you?

      It is harder for a rich man to get into heaven that for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, and in Jesus' day, rich meant three extra goats. Most Christians are rich by that standard.

      Jesus ordered a standard that, well, has any Christian ever actually tried to do those things? I realize that selling everything is astoundingly bad advice, and just giving money to the poor doesn't truly help, but those are the orders of Jesus.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

      February 26, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Kee

      @ Theo Noh
      @ So you have sold all your goods and given the proceeds to the poor then, have you?

      Sh^t. No. Have you?

      February 26, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • Kee

      @Theo Noh
      @ ...but those are the orders of Jesus.

      Was that an absolute? Or was there more to the story? Who did Jesus tell to sell all his possessions? Me? Or a man that was trying to tell Jesus how good he was? What question did this man ask Jesus?

      February 26, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      Oh dear, must teach the Christian about his Bible.

      While Christians love to make the claim that it only applies to one guy, the Bible shows otherwise, nevermind the utter pointlessness of including rules that apply to no one else.

      If you look before Luke 18:22, which you are quoting, to Luke 12:33, you will see that Jesus says the exact same thing said to the disciples and all those present. Which does not include a rich kid. Jesus repeats the instruction to the rich kid, but in no place does he say "these instructions are only for you".

      He tells his followers to do it, and later he repeats it to the rich kid. And Christians, realizing that it is incredibly bad advice, take the tortured, twisted perverse interpretation that it doesn't apply to them, which ignores the first occasion.

      So you are wrong about your own scripture. Good thing there are atheists who can help clear up your misinterpretations.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Atheists and Their Bible Interpretations - Oh My

      Oh Theo....wrong. If every Christian sold all their belongings and gave the proceeds to the poor, would they then note become poor and then in need of another's charity? Would they then not be able to continue to give to the poor? You can't read scripture out of context–which means you also can't read it out of it any common sense. Christ was calling each of us to examine our position–if $$ is our idol (as it was the young ruler) then give it away (so you can focus on God). If money isn't your idol, then give as much of it away as you want (remembering Paul's direction that "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.")

      February 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • Kee

      ~~~~Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.~~~~~

      Phew, ok, thanks for educating me. I have sold possessions and given to the poor. I'm going to be ok after all.

      Thank God he didn't say "sell all your possessions" to his disciples. He just said that to the one guy who bragged about all the good things he had done.

      I have not made a purse that will not wear out? How do I do this? Jesus commands this, too. I'm sure I'm going to be in trouble if I don't do this, right?

      February 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      Not one but two Christians reimagining what the Bible says so they don't actually have to do it. Torture that passage, twist it, spin it until it doesn't say what it does.

      I don't blame you for not doing it, because it is really shitty advice, just stupid, the fast track to misery. But why does Jesus give obviously shitty advice?

      And of course it does show that the secular reality does trump religious ideology, even with Christians.

      February 26, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • Kee

      @ Theo Noh

      Just ignore what we ask and assert you are right? Ok.... And you somehow are imagining that you are educating us?

      This is how I would expect a 3rd Grader to interpret what Jesus means when he told a self-satisfied rich man to go and sell all his belongings. You are missing the point.

      February 26, 2013 at 7:20 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      You keep ignoring the earlier passage where Jesus says the same thing to his followers, with no rich kid there. He only repeats it to the rich kid, but since he has already told his followers to do it, then there is no way to claim that he only meant the kid. No way.

      Ignore what you ask? You asked nothing. That is a strange and false accusation, a violation of the Ninth Commandment, as is your puerile "third grader" comment.

      Why do you interpret Jesus in such lawyerly, contorted ways? Is his simple truth not simple but abstruse and deceptive?

      The other respondant claimed I took the passage out of context, then gave an interpretation that has no context at all. Are all Christians so underhanded and maneuvering in their logic?

      February 26, 2013 at 7:37 pm |
    • Kee

      @ Theo

      @ No way.
      Do you think Jesus is teaching that the way to get into heaven is to sell all your possessions? Because I don't.

      @ Ignore what you ask? You asked nothing.

      Really? You don't see any questions I've asked?

      The real point is that if you are coming to Jesus to be saved (which the people asking the questions were trying to do) you have to be willing to abandon everything you have been trusting in and holding on to (our possessions).

      @ Why do you interpret Jesus in such lawyerly, contorted ways?

      Jesus spoke in parables and poetry. There are deeper meanings to what he says.

      @ claimed I took the passage out of context

      He put the passage into context. You took it out of conext and declared it was an abolute law we have to follow.

      --

      Jesus + selling all your possessions = salvation? No.

      Jesus = salvation. If we have to give away all our belongings, why did he die on the cross? He already did it all for us.

      February 26, 2013 at 8:47 pm |
    • Kee

      @ a violation of the Ninth Commandment

      I can't hold all the commandments. I break them everyday. All of them, according to Jesus. That's why I need Jesus.

      You really don't have a firm grasp on Christian theology.

      February 26, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Christian theology punches a god sized hole in you, then offers you something to plug it up with. It's complete nonsense with absolutely no supporting evidence. It is divisive, controlling, and immoral.

      February 26, 2013 at 8:51 pm |
    • Zingo

      By your logic, there is absolutely no crime you cannot commit that would prevent you from going to heaven. You can rape babies and slaughter and do whatever, and as long as you go Jesus, you're in. The only standard is Jesus, and even though the Bible says you cannot do them, you say you actually can as long as you accept Jesus.

      Everything is permitted as long as you go Jesus. The only thing Jesus will keep you out of heaven for is not being a sycophant.

      Your god is one sick puppy. Good thing he doesn't exist.

      February 26, 2013 at 8:54 pm |
    • Kee

      @Zingo
      @ Everything is permitted as long as you go Jesus.

      Good luck with that! I don't live my life that way. That sounds like somebody who thinks Jesus is some kind of magical puppy, not a savior who can help us overcome our sins.

      Once I learned to act out of love, and not out of fear of going to hell or not living religiously enough, things got much better for me. I've been saved by Jesus and I live my life in response to that.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      I'm afraid you are the one with the poor grasp of theology. You ignore what is written to obey the commonly-held version of the moment, but of course over the centuries, that has changed radically – and always there were people like you claiming their grasp of theology was correct, as the witches burned, as the Inquisition tortured, as the Puritans created their theocracy. All of you saying different things at different times, and thinking you have it right.

      Yeah.

      My real point is, of course, to show that what you believe is insane, and that Christians don't even try to obey their Bible, despite freaking out at people like gays who don't obey your Bible. Let's face it: you don't even try to not sin, and why would you when Jesus says you break all the commandments every day?

      Christian hypocrisy and the insanity of the Bible are just too much. Fortunately the trend to secularism is strng, growing faster than religion by far, and we appreciate Christians for sharing their insane views and converting more atheists for us.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:15 pm |
    • Kee

      @ Theo
      @ I'm afraid you are the one with the poor grasp of theology.

      I am a Christian. What you are describing is not what I believe. I am willing to give up my possessions for God. I have started already.

      @ My real point is, of course, to show that what you believe is insane, and that Christians don't even try to obey their Bible, despite freaking out at people like gays...

      I'm not anti-gay. They are welcome to worship God in my church. We are reaching out to them.

      @Fortunately the trend to secularism is strng, growing faster than religion by far...

      The largest Christian revival in world history is going on in China right now, by the way.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Your church is "reaching out to them"? In what way?

      February 26, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
    • Kee

      @Tom

      We released a statement saying the can come to our church and so on.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
    • Kee

      @Tom

      We released a statement saying they* can come to our church and so on.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Wow. How very progressive of you.

      /sarcasm off

      February 26, 2013 at 9:35 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Kee

      Yea they can go to your church, as long as they believe their worthless pieces of shit and behave and think as your church tells them to.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
    • Kee

      Well, we haven't actually had one come in yet. But we will be releasing another statement. And, so soon when one finally does come in, yea, we totally will be telling them how to behave and think. Because that is exactly what churches do. Spot on!

      February 26, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
  4. JMEF

    Chad
    And of course point 4, is what Chad has his monumental apologetics points to spew out, ignore him, all of his points have been refuted in the past over and over again.

    February 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • Jacob

      On what 'basis' do you propose taxing a church?

      February 26, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • Jacob

      You may want to look up the stats on AAFRC , so that you are better informed before betraying ignorance next time.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • Canon

      On what 'basis' you asked?
      How about emotional, oh wait, that is not a basis.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • JMEF

      Jacob
      What?

      February 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
  5. myweightinwords

    Live4Him,

    I've tried to reply to some of the things you said about birth control, but my computer is being glitchy and after typing a big response, I've lost it twice (what I get for typing on the fly, instead of crafting my response in word first I guess).

    The gist of my response was: You can't be serious. Right?

    Do you honestly believe that married women only take birth control out of fear that their husband will leave them or so that they can fool around?

    What about those who do not want to have children? Should they not get to have sex just because they don't want kids? What about those who can't afford to have kids right now and want to wait? Do they not get to have sex either?

    And that's just the married folks.

    Your concept of women is antiquated and outdated and makes me wonder if you actually know any actual adult women. Your idea of us as quivering emotional messes that spread our legs to get men to love us is offensive and disgusting.

    February 26, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Plenty of Christian mothers used to teach their daughters that s.ex was what a woman had to endure for the privilege of being a mother. Disgusting.
      What can be said about someone like my partner?
      She doesn't want to get married to anyone! Even after 8 years and a a child together, if I asked her tomorrow to marry me she would refuse.
      If se'x were all about intimacy and emotional reassurance for women, there wouldn't be a massively successful industry selling female self-pleasure products.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • clarity

      Agreed, myweight. On a mac, if I see that my response is going to be more than a line or two, I copy to a note (mine is still part of the mail app, not the newer stand-alone Notes app), where it will still highlight misspellings, but also for safety in case the submission doesn't work. I would imagine there must be something on Windows side that would be good for this and not as overkill as Word. Like greater than Notepad, but less than Word. (Not that Word truth be nuts; lol.)

      February 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        I'm a tech writer, so Word is almost always open on my computer, so it's no big thing to just work there and copy/paste over. I just need to remember to do it when I'm typing more than a few lines.

        February 26, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : but my computer is being glitchy and after typing a big response, I've lost it twice

      No problem. I understand your frustration.

      @myweightinwords : The gist of my response was: You can't be serious. Right?

      I'm absolutely serious.

      @myweightinwords : Do you honestly believe that married women only take birth control out of fear that their husband will leave them or so that they can fool around?

      Yes.

      @myweightinwords : What about those who do not want to have children?

      Then they could have their tubes cut.

      @myweightinwords : What about those who can't afford to have kids right now and want to wait?

      Nobody can "afford" children. Children always take from the family. The dollar that you spend feeding a child cannot be used to entertain yourself. So, if you get 'self' out of the way, you realize that anyone over the age of 22 can afford children – if they want them bad enough (i.e. willing to sacrifice their wants to have the children).

      I once knew a man (co-worker) whose wife stayed home to take care of the children. He was earning a low-professional wage at the time. To cut expenses, he bought a 'new' car every year – for $500. He drove it for the year and traded it in the next year for a 'new' $500 car. This kept his car expenses to $500 plus gas for the entire year. All this to live a Christian life with children.

      @myweightinwords : Your concept of women is antiquated and outdated and makes me wonder if you actually know any actual adult women. Your idea of us as quivering emotional messes that spread our legs to get men to love us is offensive and disgusting.

      But research shows that it is true – at least for younger women. Let me ask you one question – If you could guarantee that the next man you met would treat you 'right' and stay with you for life, would you walk away from him? An honest woman would say an emphatic 'No'. BTW – 'right' is defined as how you would want to be treated if all the facts were known after factoring out the emotional impact.

      So, why have sex outside of marriage? It is because you're seeking this kind of relationship but don't think you can find it. So, you settle for less. In short, you allow yourself to be used to 'feel good' about yourself (i.e. I'm lovable).

      February 26, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
      • myweightinwords

        Live4Him,

        Then they could have their tubes cut.

        You do know that most doctors will not sterilize a woman under the age of 40, right? They are too paranoid that the woman will change her mind. Trust me. I tried. Repeatedly. From the time I was about 30 and realized I didn’t want kids.

        Nobody can “afford” children. Children always take from the family.

        Wrong. A young couple who have to eat ramen every night to keep a roof over their head can not afford a child. That same couple ten years later, having progressed in their careers enough to earn enough to have savings, etc, can afford to have a child.

        How is that hard to understand?

        The dollar that you spend feeding a child cannot be used to entertain yourself.

        How about feeding yourself? How about putting clothes on your back and a roof over your head. I make decent money, but I scrape by. If I were to suddenly have a child, I would be unable to pay for basics.

        So, if you get ‘self’ out of the way, you realize that anyone over the age of 22 can afford children – if they want them bad enough (i.e. willing to sacrifice their wants to have the children).

        Have you EVER been in a position where you didn’t know when or where your next meal was coming from? I have. In fact, last week I wasn’t sure how I was putting gas in my car to get to work this week. And I’m 44. It isn’t about self.

        In fact, I would argue choosing to wait until you can reasonably afford to care for a child is the epitome of selfless.

        I once knew a man (co-worker) whose wife stayed home to take care of the children. He was earning a low-professional wage at the time. To cut expenses, he bought a ‘new’ car every year – for $500. He drove it for the year and traded it in the next year for a ‘new’ $500 car. This kept his car expenses to $500 plus gas for the entire year. All this to live a Christian life with children.

        In what, 1922? My car payment is more than that in a month, plus insurance, registration, gas, maintenance, etc. I call bull.

        But research shows that it is true – at least for younger women.

        Sure, emotional teenagers who buy into the idea that they aren’t complete without a man to take care of them. Our society continues to push the ridiculous notion that the only viable option is coupling. Raise a young woman to love herself, and see the difference.

        Let me ask you one question – If you could guarantee that the next man you met would treat you ‘right’ and stay with you for life, would you walk away from him?

        I have no desire to have someone stay with me “for life”. None. I have no desire to have another person living in my space. I have no desire to marry. I have no need of someone to treat me any special way. I take care of myself. I love myself. I surround myself with people who love me. Some of them come with physical benefits.

        An honest woman would say an emphatic ‘No’. BTW – ‘right’ is defined as how you would want to be treated if all the facts were known after factoring out the emotional impact.

        Which would mean not wanting to live with me, not wanting to get married, allowing me to have other relationships…which I already have…so….I’m not sure I get your point.

        So, why have sex outside of marriage? It is because you’re seeking this kind of relationship but don’t think you can find it.
        Wrong. Period. Why sex outside of marriage? Because I don’t want marriage, and sex is fun and good for you and excellent exercise.

        So, you settle for less. In short, you allow yourself to be used to ‘feel good’ about yourself (i.e. I’m lovable).

        Honestly, I have never felt used by any of my sex partners. Ever. Any of them. And there have been a few, both male and female. I am always straightforward and honest about what I’m interested in getting from the relationship, and the only guilt I have ever felt was when a partner wasn’t honest about what he wanted being the same as what I wanted, so when he tried to make it a more serious relationship, his feelings were hurt.

        February 26, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
    • Wow

      Seriously that's all I can say is Wow to L4H's post. Wow

      It's really scary knowing such ignorant fools walk this earth.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • clarity

      @Wow – agreed.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Tommy

      People who think like Live4Him scare the crap out of me.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      WOW indeed!

      Birth control is wrong, but sterilization is perfectly fine!

      February 26, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      Livey needs to get research to find out what women do? Really? Very safe to say he has never had a date in his life (and never will)!

      February 26, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lie4ever is either a poe or completely idiotic. Just moronic. Women who don't want children should have their tubes tied? What's the difference to you, muttonhead, between a tubal ligation and taking the pill? Are you so fvcking stupid that you think a newly married couple just out of college is as able to afford the staggering costs of raising children as a couple that are 30, have been married several years and are more established in their careers? Are you really so ignorant that you think women take birth control because they think they're going to be left to raise kids on their own? You dolt, do you think women who DON'T take birth control are LESS likely to be divorced? If so, you're just ignorant of the facts.

      You're really just azzholishly dim.

      February 26, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
  6. Live4Him

    @Franklin : Sorry, but archeology does not prove the Bible nearly as much as you want.

    Those who follow the scientific method acknowledge that nothing can be proven in whole. All that can be proven is the parts. And not all the parts can be proven. Instead, science functions that a theory is considered valid as long as some evidence has been presented to support that theory, while no evidence exists to falsify that theory.

    Using this scientific method, along with the known facts, one must look for evidence to falsify the Bible before one can disparage the historical accuracy of the Bible.

    February 26, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • Really?

      The fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.

      The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

      A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

      The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.

      Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).

      This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.

      Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).

      Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

      Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened"

      February 26, 2013 at 3:24 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Really? : The fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character.

      But, is there any evidence that falsifies the Bible? That is the issue here, not how much has already been proven.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      And I'm now going to say there was no evidence of a global flood, you're going to say there is, I'm going to ask you for that evidence, and you're not going to give it. Shall we just skip to where I call you a liar and you run away from the thread?

      February 26, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • William

      From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Foxwell Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
      But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.

      The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Let's assume for the moment that The Bable does contain som historical facts. That does not provide any support for The Babble's supernatural or divine claims. Until believers come up with definitive, independent, verifiable, objective and factual evidence for their god and the divine jesus story, they are just spewing unsupported bullsh!t, no different than astrologers.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • clarity

      Gullible4Him: "Using this scientific method, along with the known facts, one must look for evidence to falsify the Bible before one can disparage the historical accuracy of the Bible."

      Rubbish. What known facts? The word of the Bible as a representation of the law of the God of Israel (and not of the people) is meaningless without the supernatural events in the Bible, right? (miracles, God speaking to various individuals, for Christians, the resurrection and Christ appearing and speaking after the death of Jesus) What known facts are there of the supernatural events in the Bible for which you think you have credible evidence?

      February 26, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      Chad, I asked you to state your academic credentials, but you squirmed out of answering. Tell us your credentials. What level of education have you attained, and in what field(s).

      February 26, 2013 at 7:13 pm |
    • .

      Theo Noh ?

      February 26, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • Credentials

      Theo Noh – Mr. misspell every other word – what are your credentials. And social security #?

      February 26, 2013 at 9:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What words did he misspell?

      Don't you want to see Chard's credentials? I know I do.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
  7. Jacob

    Such is the ignorance of the masses that suggest 'taxation' on churches without any basic understanding of the term

    February 26, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
  8. HotAirAce

    If the delusional believers paid taxes on their cult's property, the government would have more money. If the cults sold their shrines to imaginary beings, they could spend the money on the poor. If the cults gave up their childish beliefs, they could focus their energies and resources on more meaningful endeavors (than bowing and scraping to some imaginary god). In other words, there're many ways for the delusional to help the poor without trying to guilt trip politicians.

    February 26, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • Chad

      1. Churches have been tax exempt since the founding of the country, U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
      2. Christian organizations are among the largest, if not THE largest, charitable organizations in the world (what atheist charitable organizations are out there? 🙂 )
      3. Christians on average are the largest personal givers
      4. What evidence do you have that the God of Israel isnt real as you are claiming?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Chad, do you have numbers for #3?

      In my experience that doesn't hold true. Or do you only count "giving" as to organizations?

      Many Pagans do their individual giving on an individual level; buying groceries for a family that is out of work, paying PG&E bills in the winter, organizing supplies during disasters, etc. We also tend to give to existing organizations (when they'll have our dirty, heathen money). I know many atheists who do the same.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • Franklin

      Chad
      But churches do more than just charity, right? They have other business, like providing marriage counselling, social events, concerts and the like, so why can't they be taxed at least partially? If Companies like MacDonalds can be taxed and still do a lot of charity which is considered separate from it's main business, and the main business of churches is not doing charity, why not?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • JMEF

      Intresting that most of the fraudulent charities or those that siphon off the most percentage of funds for "administration" are run by christian organizations.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • Barry McKockner

      Um, #2 has an "if" in there. How sure are you?

      February 26, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Jacob

      HAA-On what 'basis' do you propose churches be taxed?

      February 26, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Many atheists, including myself, give via richarddawkins.net.

      What evidence do you have for your god? What alleged evidence do you have that has not been repeatedly destroyed? The answer is "none" in both cases.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Just like any other corporation.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • Jacob

      Good luck, try to get that legislated by whatever reasoning you have come with.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      1. Churches have been tax exempt since the founding of the country, U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

      I didn't see anything calling the exemption illegal, though that could be argued. The argument is just that the law should be changed. I don't however have the same belief as Ace that churches do no good for their members and would only make taxable the components not directly related to true charitible works.

      2. Christian organizations are among the largest, if not THE largest, charitable organizations in the world (what atheist charitable organizations are out there? )

      Few "atheist" organizations since atheists rarely organize, not having a shared value system. There are, however, a ton of secular ones, from the Red Cross to Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, Oxfam, The Nature Conservancy and thousands of others.

      3. Christians on average are the largest personal givers

      The numbers you're thinking of, which are usually derived from tax data, include church donations (at least the only figures I've seen) and you would have to separate out true charitable giving to decide how to count those numbers. And in at least one study, Jews do a lot better than Christians:

      http://www.psmag.com/culture/jewish-americans-win-alms-race-22297

      February 26, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • Free nuts

      What proof do you have chad that it is real?

      February 26, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • sam stone

      "What evidence do you have that the God of Israel isnt real as you are claiming?"

      Chard, what evidence do you have that Odin isn't real?

      This is always asked of you, but you never respond. You are as much a coward as Gopher

      February 26, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @Sam,

      Typical responses to "what evidence do you have that the God of Israel is not real"
      "Christians havent proved the God of Israel exists"
      "why do you Mr. Christian reject unicorns/other religious/santa clause/Islam/Q'uran/Mormonism/Odin/whatever"
      "the concept of God of Israel is stupid"
      "The God of Israel isnt real"
      "You're a moron"

      ===
      Believers have a reason to reject the existence of Odin, namely that belief in the God of Israel is mutually exclusive with belief in other gods.
      – If the God of Israel is real, there are no other gods
      – The God of Israel is real
      – Therefor, Odin does not exist

      February 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
    • .

      – If Odin is real, there are no other gods
      – Odin is real
      – Therefore, God of Israel does not exist

      February 26, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      It's so pathetic that Chad's only justification for rejecting other religions is that he assumes his own religion is true.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:19 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Your logic on why Odin isn't real to you is sound, however you still fail at proving the god of israel's existance without a lot of supposition and assumption. I hope one day you can actually understand that when you point out a gap in understanding, it can't and shouldn't be filled with the assumed "god" until you can find affirmative proof of god.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • Chad

      Evidence for the existence of Odin
      -0-

      Evidence for the existence of the God of Israel
      Historical evidence
      – no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect
      – Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
      – Historicity of the empty tomb
      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.

      Scientific evidence for the God of Israel
      Fossil Record.
      From the late 1800's thru 1972 the notion of "Darwinian gradualism" held the world captive. The notion that purely random mutation preserved in the population by natural selection would produce a gradual change, which over time would create the complexity of life we now observe (phyletic gradualism).
      Then, in 1972 the publication of "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" by Stephen Gould (atheist) finally forced the scientific world to accept the reality that the fossil record does not show the gradual change over time that Darwin proposed.

      Instead, what the community was forced to acknowledge, is that the fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change.
      This supports the theistic evolutionist claim that God used natural processes to develop life on this earth, as pure chance can never explain the grand paroxysm of necessarily interrelated mutations that are required to occur to accomplish this rapid change.

      Origins of the universe
      For most of scientific history, the universe was thought to have always existed, directly refuting the theistic claim that the universe had a beginning, and a creator.

      Then, a series of discoveries resulted in a complete transformation of thought, we now know that our universe has not always existed, rather it had a beginning, confirming the theistic claim:
      – 1929: Edwin Hubble discovers red shift (the stars and planets are all moving away from each other. The universe is expanding in all directions)
      – 1965: discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation (the echo's of the big bang)
      – 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999).
      – 2003: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe proves our universe had a beginning

      Fine Tuning of the universe
      In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.

      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the mas ses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life - Stephen Hawking

      “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. Dyson of the Insti tute for Advanced Study in Princeton

      Now, neither Davies or Hawking is a believer in God. They both believe in fine tuning, they just posit natural reasons for it.

      Evidence from human experience
      – Objective morality exists
      – Free will exists (atheist/naturalist/determinist do not believe in free will)

      February 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      My bad, Chad. You are not a coward. You are an imbecile.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Chad has absolutely no idea how to actually defend his position, he only knows how to reassert it over and over.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      "Your logic on why Odin isn't real to you is sound"

      All premises have to be true in an argument for it to be sound. "The God of Israel is real" is not known to be a true statement.
      Therefore, that argument cannot be said to be sound.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • William

      We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

      The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Not only can everything you listed be attributed to Ra, or Odin or other gods, but still involves an incredible amount of supposition and not affirmative evidence but rather affirmation to yourself because science has yet to fill a gap.

      I especially get annoyed by your statement that "fine-tuning exists". Please define what you think as "fine-tuned". As far as we know the earth might be "fine-tuned" if you think that the only way for life to ever exist is if it follows the exact same formula that earth did. As for the universe being fine-tuned, please show me anywhere else in the ENTIRE universe other than earth that is fine tuned for life. Just one.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • William

      One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • William

      We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story

      February 26, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • William

      No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • Chad

      Ra, Odin never claimed to create the universe, therefore the fact that our universe has not always been here and had a discrete beginning can not be used to support the reality of Ra or Odin.
      Neither can the historicity of the bible, Jesus, etc, etc...

      so, nothing in that list applies to Ra or Odin, as neither has claimed responsibility for any of it.

      ====
      Fine tuning is best explained by the experts:
      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the mas ses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life - Stephen Hawking

      “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. Dyson of the Insti tute for Advanced Study in Princeton

      February 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @TANK

      Actually, the argument is sound, but it is not valid. For a logical argument to be sound, it must be internally consistent, regardless of whether the premises are true. For an agument to be sound, the premises must be demonstrated to be true.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Going with the same assertions you tried and failed to defend yesterday I see. Truly pathetic. You have no evidence, and the only thing you're good at is being a dishonest little shit.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Reality

      The Gates Foundation is controlled by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, both atheists or agnostics depending on whose bio you read.

      The top nine charitable organizations globally:

      1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
      United States
      $37.4 billion
      2 Stichting INGKA Foundation
      Netherlands
      $36.0 billion
      3 Wellcome Trust
      United Kingdom
      $22.1 billion
      4 Howard Hughes Medical Insti-tute
      United States
      $16.1 billion
      5 Ford Foundation
      United States
      $10.3 billion
      6 Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation
      United Arab Emirates
      $10.0 billion
      7 J. Paul Getty Trust
      United States
      $9.6 billion
      8 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
      United States
      $9.2 billion
      9 Li Ka Shing Foundation
      Hong Kong
      $8.3 billion

      February 26, 2013 at 4:43 pm |
    • clarity

      The conditions in this part of the universe do indeed seem finely tuned for us. Why wouldn't they be? We can just as easily say that we are the result of a very specific set of conditions that wound up the way they did. We can also wonder if there are other places in the cosmos where conditions resulted in something natural, who's requirements are quite different than ours. We can also wonder if there are possibly many other places in the universe where things not remotely in our concept of nature do not exist because the conditions wound up the way they did. But it is better to consider all possibilities in the universe rather than being self-serving and thinking that we are the center of attention in the universe.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @TANK!!!

      What Hawaii said

      @Chad
      Well lets see. Ynnir was said to have been born from the Ice and from there he created. Ra came from Nun and also began creating. We don't know where god came from (your assertion he lives outside of time and space is only presumption) but Genesis begins after the creator has already been created himself. The only difference between the myths is that Norse, Egyptian, etc.. myths discuss the creation of their own gods whereas genesis begins after god is already on the scene. Keep in mind Genesis doesn't say in the beginning of the universe, it just says "the beginning" which could be the beginning of god, or of gods creation, etc, you only assume "beginning" refers to the beginning of the universe, which as we've all pointed out, is supposition and assumption without theological or empiracle evidence.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • Chad

      @clarity "The conditions in this part of the universe do indeed seem finely tuned for us. Why wouldn't they be?"
      @Chad "the odds of the initial conditions of the universe being what they had to be to support life anywhere in the universe, purely by random chance, are so fantastically remote, that they can be considered virtually zero.
      That's what the leading physicists observe, as seen by the quotes above.

      ====
      @clarity "We can just as easily say that we are the result of a very specific set of conditions that wound up the way they did"
      @Chad "well, yes 🙂 but what was the cause of those very specific set of conditions, that's the question.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      As for the fine tuning, I asked you. I did not ask if you could quote it. Personally I find it a little silly to look at life being created after the fact and saying that a) it was perfect conditions and b) that life needs EXACTLY this formula in order to exist. Since we have yet to find life anywhere else we don't know if life can only consist of carbon-based forms, or if life needs liquid water, or that life needs certain amount of heat on a planet, it's only a guess and this again, only applies to EARTH not the universe. I can promise you that these scientists would generally agree with this and everything they say about what is needed for life has the assumption that we believe life only exists as we know it.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      You are, of course, misunderstanding Hawking, Davies, etc... with the quotes provided. Davies points out that his conclusion doesn't mean what you are positing, but rather the building blocks are there. Hawking and Dyson are both saying that for the theorized chain of events to happen that led to our creation are remote (NOT 0 as you put it), but aren't saying that it couldn't have happened without a creator. They each point out that the confluence of events that led to our creation are statistically improbable to happen again, but not denying that it didn't happen or couldn't happen.

      You still labor under intense delusion chad. Very intense.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Chad

      More in fine tuning:

      : "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop." Dr. Dennis Scania, Cambridge University Observatories

      "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all." - Dr. David D. Deutsch, Insti tute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

      "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a 'put-up job.'" - Dr. Paul Davies, Adelaide University:

      "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars - Sir Fred Hoyle

      "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quant ities had slightly different values." - Dr. Gerald Schroeder, former professor of physics at M.I.T.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • sam stone

      Chad: What does Ra or Odin claiming or not claiming have to do with whether they are real?

      February 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • William

      With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither a beginning nor an end: it would simply be. What pace, then, for a creator? – Stephen Hawking

      February 26, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • .

      Yup, Chad's doing the google thing again.

      http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/science-quotes/

      February 26, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Chad

      Just a few more...

      beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. - Professor Steven Weinberg

      The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side." - Michael Turner, astrophysicist University of Chicago

      the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment." - Roger Penrose University of Oxford

      February 26, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • Franklin

      Chad
      Why do you think that there is objective morality?

      As for the rest of that cut-and-paste of yours, I think we've all seen this list refuted time and time again. There's nothing special about your YHWH that makes him any more plausible than the other gods. I am truly sorry that you do not realize that.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Hubert

      The fine tuning argument in a nutshell.

      ". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in’an interesting hole I find myself in’fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’
      -Douglas Adams

      February 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Wiliam

      “Do we need a God to set it all up so a Big Bang can bang? … Our everyday experience makes us convinced that everything that happens must be caused by something that occurred earlier in time. So it’s natural for us to assume that something—perhaps God—must have caused the universe to come into existence. But when we’re talking about the universe as a whole, that isn’t necessarily so.

      The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop [at the singularity]. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything. … So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It’s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.” – Stephen Hawking

      February 26, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Chad

      @Sam Stone "Chad: What does Ra or Odin claiming or not claiming have to do with whether they are real?"

      =>another person indicated that all of the items on that list could just as easily be ascribed to Ra or Odin. That statement makes no sense whatsoever, as none of the docs we have describing Ra/Odin claim responsibility of anything in that list.

      If you want to prove the reality of Ra/Odin, you need to show support for their unique claims.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Wiliam

      July, 2012 During a panel discussion at a conference in Santa Clara, Calif., over the weekend, scientists discussed the Big Bang and whether there was a requirement for some divine power to kick-start the Universe 13.75 billion years ago.

      Unsurprisingly, the resounding answer was: No.

      “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”

      February 26, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • Chad

      “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”

      =>lol
      how did you get the laws of physics?

      February 26, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Tommy

      Well, it is claim that Ra created human,s and humans exist, therefore Ra is real.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      First quote: Unsubstaniated educated guess. Who knows what sort of life would have evolved or not or whether it would have evolved here on earth or somewhere else in the Universe. Dr. Dennis Scania is merely pointing out that our personal journey needs this formula but life might not.

      Second quote: referring only to earth and not the universe. That doesn't support the universe being finely tuned as much as Earth is.

      3rd quote: Davies is musing on the unlikelihood and saying what it looks like in hindesight, again it does not mean the universe is "fine-tuned" as much as Davies recognizes that the universe needs constants. We don't know why the universe has constants and by we, I mean both you and me. Your assumption that is god is just assumption as we have no empiracle evidence showing a being in the universe constantly maintaining the universe's natural laws nor is there anything in the bible to support that biblically other than conjecture.

      Fourth quote: Again, conjecture and a scientist looking in hindesight at different natural events and assigning a "superintendent" because he refuses to believe there isn't one. That's not evidence of anything other than this scientist thinks that a god (notice not specifically the god of the bible) exists.

      Fifth quote is pointing out an odd fact but not saying it was "finely-tuned" but merely pointing out that the idea of something creating something that is self aware and can study its creator seems interesting. Notice he never mentions a god or external agent, just the strangeness of the idea. He says nothing about it being impossible, or even improbable, just how strange it is for it to have happened.

      None of this quotes are saying that the god of the bible is the one to have "fine-tuned" the universe, just pointing out that it's amazing that there were a chain of events to have led up to the creation of something that can be self aware and have a sense of the space in which is was created in. I also noticed that you once again tried to shirk actually showing how this "finely-tuned" universe hypothesis is a) anything more than just a hypothesis and b) how it directly relates to your specific god without assumption.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
    • Ron

      January 2013 The scientific world is abuzz with news of the ratification of the existence of the subatomic particle called the Higgs boson – or more colloquially, the 'God particle.' This subatomic particle's existence – which was verified recently (with virtually near certainty) by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland – lends credence to several long-standing physical theories such as the so-called Standard Model and the Big Bang Theory.

      The nickname God particle is ironic for two reasons. First, generally, the nuclear physicists who deal with these matters – postulating the fundamental physical laws of the universe and then setting about to either verify or refute them – tend not to be regular church-goers. While there are some highly prominent scientists who balance personal, religious beliefs with professional, scientific quests, most probably go along with the thoughts of the world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking.

      "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God."

      So it is a bit ironic that physics' most famous quest has resulted in the discovery of the 'God particle.' Most physicists are quite comfortable having their names associated with famous – even if dead – humans like Newton, Einstein or the afore-mentioned Hawking. One will find few, if any, attributions to deities in the objects that physicists discover and name or the theories they propose.

      Second, and more importantly, the discovery that the God particle really exists does not – as the name suggests – imply that God played some role in the creation of the universe. In fact, quite the opposite.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      It's been pointed out to you numerous times, Chad. You cannot know from your point of view whether the Universe is a singular Universe, never duplicated or even approached in its qualities, or if there are infinitely many like it. It would look the same to you in either case and you would probably draw the same conclusions about it.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      Chad, what level of education have you attained? I find it very interesting that you would bash a field-leading Ph.D. astrophyicist on a concept that only the brightest in that field can truly understand.

      What are your academic credentials?

      February 26, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • .

      One thing for sure is they are going to start cracking down on copyright literature starting today and they will start blocking people with break these laws on the internet and slow down their connection. Let's hope Chad continues with his copy paste and gets booted off the internet. LOL!

      February 26, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      From their writings I'm quite sure that Steven Weinberg and Roger Penrose would not reach the same conclusions Chad does. It's a pity Stephen Jay Gould is dead. A debate between Gould and Stephen Weinberg on the separate magisteria would have been something to see. Something for Chad to see, certainly.

      February 26, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Hilarious, so instead of referring to me by name or responding directly to me, you are either just positng random quotes or just answering a random question that pops up without ackowledging it was me who asked it. Sort of like a child trying to pretend someone doesn't exist but still takes a cookie if offered one and saying "wow! I found a cookie out of no where!"

      I guess I rattled your cage more than I thought...

      February 26, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @Theo Noh " I find it very interesting that you would bash a field-leading Ph.D. astrophyicist on a concept that only the brightest in that field can truly understand."

      =>I think you are confused.. @Chuckles was the one doing the astrophysicist bashing on this thread.

      February 26, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • Chad

      " You cannot know from your point of view whether the Universe is a singular Universe, never duplicated or even approached in its qualities, or if there are infinitely many like it."

      =>ah, the multi-verse.

      In his 2003 NY Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific:

      "For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith".

      Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

      February 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      You are bashing these astrophysicists by misrepresenting them, I am merely pointing out how you are mis-representing them and how some of their opinions come from educated guesses but are still opinion and not fact.

      You still have yet to show how in ANY of the quotes you provided where any of these people say they think this "fine-tuning" is the cause of god of the bible.

      Further you have yet to even acknowledge my bit about the fact that gensis does not say anything about the beginning of the universe, but just "the beginning" and you are only using assumption that the bible means beginning of the universe. At least some mythology starts off saying at the beginning of all things which is a little more precise.

      *rattle* *rattle* *rattle*

      February 26, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
    • Chad

      I simply quote them..
      You say how they got it wrong.

      but, I'm doing the bashing?

      your mind.. it's...just... not... working... right...

      February 26, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      That's.......fu.cking......hilarious.

      In order to show that someone other than you finds the multi-verse theory absurd, you quote a man who likens the theory to your god, essentially relegating what you believe in to be as absurd as the multi-verse theory.

      Do you just ignore the parts where Davies says how absurd the idea of a creator is or do you see it and just pretend he says the opposite?

      February 26, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      So you HAVE seen my posts, thanks!

      Looks like you seem to be on the edge chad... what's a matter? Having issues?

      February 26, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
    • Science

      There you are Chad

      Non casual agent Religious BS

      Peace

      February 26, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Thank you Chad for bringing up Paul Davies' points. I did say "you cannot know from your point of view whether the Universe is a singular Universe, never duplicated or even approached in its qualities, or if there are infinitely many like it." It looks like Paul Davies agrees.

      February 26, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • Ron

      "*rattle* *rattle* *rattle*"

      Chuckles you might want to try and offer him a binky instead.

      February 26, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      And Chad continues to show how pathetically flimsy his position is by not addressing anyone and continuing his irrelevant qupting over and over again. Keep going Chad, continue to be our poster child for the damage religion does to the mind.

      February 26, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Chad

      The point of the Davies quote was pretty obvious:
      1. Atheists are more than willing to believe in something that they can not see, nor test, nor verify in any way shape or form, as long as that something isnt the God of Israel. Atheists, as naturalists, should be hooting derision at the concept of a mutliverse,. as it is an utterly non-natural (supernatural) theory on the origin of the universe. But they dont?
      why? Paul Davies thinks you're a bunch of hypocrites 🙂

      2. The mutiverse theory demonstrates that the leading physicists of our time recognize that our universe had an origin, and the causal agent for that origin must have been non-natural (supernatural).

      Both points I make repeatedly, always good to get confirmation that my statements are accurate 🙂

      February 26, 2013 at 7:59 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      And it's always good to get confirmation that you're completely full of shit, as your condescending little smiley faces show every time. You only put those out when you've been caught. You have not presented anything supporting your point. You never have presenting anything, and you probably never will, because that would entail you being an honest person.

      February 26, 2013 at 8:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @chuckles "Do you just ignore the parts where Davies says how absurd the idea of a creator is or do you see it and just pretend he says the opposite"

      @Chad "lol
      you just hate to look things up dont you 🙂
      One would think that after dozens of mistatements you might start to actually look thing up prior to confidently declaring them true.
      or not...

      Paul Davies is a Deist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=clash-in-cambridge
      Paul Davies, discerned tentative evidence of design in the laws of nature but added, "As a physicist, I feel very uncomfortable with a God who intervenes" in human affairs.

      so, Davies believes in a creator god, but not the God of Israel.

      suggested reply: ignore the fact that you didnt realize davies was a deist, thought he was an atheist. Ignore that Davies never said anything along the lines of "absurd the idea of a creator is", you just made that up.. in fact he believes in a creator..
      ignore all that, and attempt to use the fact that Davies doesnt believe in the God of Israel to accuse me of cherry picking somehow.. not sure how..

      February 26, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
    • Reality

      What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)

      1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.

      2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.

      3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

      4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

      5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

      6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.

      7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.

      Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?

      February 27, 2013 at 8:09 am |
    • John

      Peter Lipton, a Cambridge philosopher, spoke of his struggle to be a practicing Jew in spite of his lack of belief in a supernatural God. "I stand in my synagogue and pray to God and have an intense relationship with God, and yet I don't believe in God," Lipton confessed with a rueful grin. He compared his religious experience with that of someone who gets pleasure and meaning from a novel even though he knows it is not literally true.'

      February 27, 2013 at 8:57 am |
    • Paul

      " You never have presenting anything, and you probably never will, because that would entail you being an honest person."

      Proverbs 11:2 ESV
      When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.

      February 27, 2013 at 9:00 am |
    • fintastic

      @Chad............ "What evidence do you have that the God of Israel isnt real as you are claiming?"

      Come on now Chad, that would be like me asking you "what evidence do you have that leprechauns aren't real?"

      February 27, 2013 at 11:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      With the help of Paul Davies, or at least material pilfered from Paul Davies, Chad has it that we must conclude that to disagree with Chad requires faith of a kind. And since we have no faith we must agree with Chad.

      February 27, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • Chad

      @Chad"What evidence do you have that the God of Israel isnt real as you are claiming?"
      @fintastic "Come on now Chad, that would be like me asking you "what evidence do you have that leprechauns aren't real?"
      @Chad "thanks, I added that to the the list of usual responses.

      Typical responses to "what evidence do you have that the God of Israel is not real"
      "Christians havent proved the God of Israel exists"
      "why do you Mr. Christian reject unicorns/other religious/santa clause/Islam/Q'uran/Mormonism/leprechauns/whatever"
      "the concept of God of Israel is stupid"
      "The God of Israel isnt real"
      "You're a moron"

      =========
      "Chad has it that we must conclude that to disagree with Chad requires faith of a kind. And since we have no faith we must agree with Chad."
      @Chad "no...
      If you believe in the multi-verse, you believe in a non-natural causal agent that can not be measured or tested, and as Paul Davies notes, requires a faith that he sees as analogous to a religious faith.

      so, he notes, that it is utterly hypocritical for a person to criticize Christians for a faith in a creator God of Israel(which has ample evidence for), when they believe in a multi-verse.

      The multi-verse is a theory only and unlike the God of Israel has no other corroborating evidence.

      February 27, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      The multi-verse theory is just that, a theory and does not have followers or whole faiths built around but is just 1 of many theories offered to explain our universe around us and what lies beyond, if anything at all.

      You also keep pointing out that, "Paul Davies notes, requires a faith that he sees as analogous to a religious faith."and use that to say how absurd the multi-verse theory is and yet ignore the fact that the same expert likens belief in this theory to your faith. Which is Chad, is it crazy to believe in both the multi-verse and the god of the bible or is it logical to believe in both? You are equating both so which one Chad?

      February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Do you just enjoy being a complete liar? The thought of a multiverse is a hypothesis, not a theory, and you have also never actually defended your claim of ample evidence for the god of israel. All you've ever done is copy paste your standard response and just plug your ears going "nope, nope I'm right you're wrong because I say so, nope, nope, god is real nyah nyah" whenever actually challenged on your points. You're so pathetic that I would feel bad for you if you weren't also more dishonest than any other person I've ever heard of.

      February 27, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Look at Chad being word cute again, mentioning corroborating evidence when he knows there is no factual, objective, verifiable, independent evidence aka proof for his god or any of his religious beliefs.

      February 27, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
  9. Reality

    Only for the new members of this blog:

    Au Contraire!!

    In order to pay down our $16 trillion debt, we need to redirect money used to support/control religions especially the christian and islamic cons and put it towards paying off our debt.

    Redirecting our funds and saving a lot of "souls" in the process:

    Saving 1.5 billion lost Muslims:
    There never were and never will be any angels i.e. no Gabriel, no Islam and therefore no more koranic-driven acts of horror and terror LIKE 9/11.

    – One trillion dollars over the next several years as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will end.

    – Eighteen billion dollars/yr to Pakistan will stop.

    – Four billion dollars/yr to Egypt will end.

    Saving 2 billion lost Christians including the Mormons:
    There were never any bodily resurrections and there will never be any bodily resurrections i.e. No Easter, no Christianity!!!

    – The Mormon empire will now become taxable as will all Christian "religions" and evangelical non-profits since there is no longer any claim to being a tax-exempt religion.

    – the faith-based federal projects supported by both Bush and Obama will be eliminated saving $385 million/yr and another $2 billion/yr in grants.

    Giving to religious groups mostly Christian in 2010, totaled $95.8 billion,

    – Saving 15.5 million Orthodox followers of Judaism:
    Abraham and Moses never existed.

    – Four billion dollars/yr to Israel saved.

    – All Jewish sects and non-profits will no longer be tax exempt.

    Now all we need to do is convince these 3.5+ billion global and local citizens that they have been conned all these centuries Time for a YouTube,Twitter and FaceBook campaign!!!!
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    February 26, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Barry McKockner

      I wasn't aware this blog recquired a membership. Oh dear, must be overdue for membership fees.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Reality

      "Sign up through CNN only:

      Screen nameThis can't be changed later!
      Use 3-12 characters; Numbers and letters only

      E-mailMake sure you typed it correctly.
      You will receive an e-mail to validate your account

      PasswordMake it 6-10 characters, no spaces

      Type what you see in the grey box

      If you can't read this, try another one.

      Yes, I would like to receive occasional CNN member updates about new features and special offers.
      CNN will use the information you submit in a manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. By clicking on "sign up" you agree with CNN's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and consent to the collection, storage and use of this information in the U.S. subject to U.S. laws and regulations. "

      February 26, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • midwest rail

      None of which indicates "membership".

      February 26, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
  10. Live4Him

    @Kevin : Mormons have every bit as much evidence that their religion is the correct one as Christians and Muslims and all the others have: none.

    You must be new. Welcome. However, you've advanced a posit that is easily falsified.

    Bible: Numerous archeological sites attest to the historical accuracy of the Bible.
    Mormons: The society described by Smith has left no archeological evidence of its existence, while other archeological evidence points to a different society existing during the time described by Smith.

    February 26, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      L4H, I can just claim things too:

      Numerous archeological sites attest to the historical accuracy of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      We are still waiting for your factual evidence.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Science

      Facts only L4 H

      Dover Trial Transcripts

      Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

      http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      Peace

      I know I am on the ignore list !!!

      February 26, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • clarity

      L4H: "Bible: Numerous archeological sites attest to the historical accuracy of the Bible."

      This is drastically an overstatement because the evidence crucial to support the key tenets of Christian belief (the supernatural characteristic of the Jesus character for instance) are virtually nil. Not only nil, but the some of the revealing challenges against it are evident from within Christianity itself. When challenged that the unauthored gospel stories looked too much like earlier pagan stories, several early Christian apologists could only come up with the excuse of diabolical mimicry. That is, they claimed that the devil had disseminated the earlier "fake" stories in advance of the real ones. Wow – plagiarism in reverse, thanks to the devil. lol. Yeah right.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      Far more archaeological evidence supports Greek mythology, so Zeus and Athena must exist and all their stories are true.

      The Mormon god obviously magicked all the evidence away to keep the false people in darkness.

      See how the "magic" answer you use also works for everyone else?

      February 26, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      There's scads of archeological evidence supporting the Epic of Gilgamesh.
      The city of Uruk has been excavated – it is a real place.
      In fact, The Bible and The Epic of Gilgamesh have several things in common, like stories of a global flood.

      That's doesn't mean that Gilgamesh was a demi-god who ruled for 125 years and visited the Underworld.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      "Bible: Numerous archeological sites attest to the historical accuracy of the Bible."

      The Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

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

      February 26, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @clarity : This is drastically an overstatement because the evidence crucial to support the key tenets of Christian belief (the supernatural characteristic of the Jesus character for instance) are virtually nil. Not only nil, but

      Virtually nil is not the same as nil. 'Virtually' means that some evidence exist.

      -------

      @clarity : When challenged that the unauthored gospel stories looked too much like earlier pagan stories

      What is the earliest extant manuscript of a pagan story that looks similar to one of the Gospel stories?

      -------

      @Theo Noh : Far more archaeological evidence supports Greek mythology, so Zeus and Athena must exist and all their stories are true.

      How do you know this to be true?

      -------

      @Doc Vestibule : Epic of Gilgamesh

      Was this intended as a historical account or a fictional story?

      @Doc Vestibule : In fact, The Bible and The Epic of Gilgamesh have several things in common, like stories of a global flood.

      Ever hear of the historical fiction genre?

      -------

      @Smithsonian : In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.

      And what are the underlying facts to support such a conclusion?

      February 26, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Theo Noh

      I know it to be false, just as I know your assertion to be false. I was pointing out the illogic of your claim the archaeology somehow proves the existence of any god – it doesn't not at all. Are you really so inept in your reading skills?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • Bobby Brady

      Live4Him just admitted the Bible was "historical fiction."

      Well done, Live4Him! You finally understand!

      February 26, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Well, you cut and run from the other post, good on you. Lets see Mormons have all sorts of eyewitnesses to their brand of religion walking around today. A bunch of them good old boys were knocking up as much as a dozen women at a time, producing hunderds of children, many are still around. Bejesus you don't need archeological proof for Smith, you can talk to his offspring. Unless you believe in the Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown you are sh it out of luck talking to the jesus descendants.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • clarity

      Gullible4Him: [ "clarity : This is drastically an overstatement because the evidence crucial to support the key tenets of Christian belief (the supernatural characteristic of the Jesus character for instance) are virtually nil.

      Virtually nil is not the same as nil. 'Virtually' means that some evidence exist." ]

      And that's why I used the word overstatement. Archaeological evidence, whatever there may be of Biblical characters do little if anything at all to support the supernatural claims of Christianity. It's just as reasonable to think an empty tomb is no more evidence than some gold plates that went missing.

      Gullible4Him [ clarity : "When challenged that the unauthored gospel stories looked too much like earlier pagan stories.."

      What is the earliest extant manuscript of a pagan story that looks similar to one of the Gospel stories? ]

      Who gives a rat's ass? The point is it was an obvious point of embarrassment for the early church for which they had to come up with an excuse – a really ridiculous excuse. Pointing fingers at the devil to try to explain it without some other solid explanation is just ridiculous. Can you prove when each story was written? Can you prove when each gospel was written? Can you prove who wrote the gospels?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      A lot of believers have the idea that archaeological findings support their religion. It only does so if it includes incontrovertible evidence supporting their claims of actions by their God(s). The Bible for example, when demythologized, is in fair agreement with archaeological findings. No archaeological findings point to the activities of its God of Israel or to the Resurrection, nil (nil is a great word to use for it).

      February 26, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      Gilgamesh is an account of the life and times of the historical King of Uruk – he was a real person.
      It is also perhaps the oldest written story in the world, pre-dating the Christ story by thousands of years.
      Neither the Dead Sea Scrolls nor the Gilgamesh stone tablets have any kind of inscription on them saying "This is a work of historical fiction. Events and personnages are dramatic recreations, inspired by true events".

      Historical figures become mythologized.
      Look at Santa Claus. St. Nikolas of Myrna was a real person. We know this because he attended the Nicene Council in 325 and helped decide what exactly was to be included in the Bible (and whether the whole "Triune God" thing would become dogma).
      Originally, the story about him was they he tossed a bag of gold through the window of a poor father so he could afford a dowry to marry off his daughter.
      Centuries pass and the tales are embellished – St. Nikolas becomes Santa, the jolly old man who pops down the chimney with toys, or as Cinter Claus elsewhere in the world who leaves chocolate coins in shoes... etc.
      George Washington becomes a man with wooden teeth who never lied.
      Even Ronald Reagan is becoming more myth than man – He's the guy who saved America and defeated communism instead of the man who enabled profiteering, clandestinely overthrew governments in South America and the MIddle East and who was senile for at least the latter half of his second term.
      To an outside perspective, Gilgamesh and Jesus are in the same boat – ancient tales with some historicity and lots of outlandish, but ultimately undisprovable supernatural elements.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Doc, LOL I was just about to respond to TTTOO with a comment on Gilgamesh and refreshed the page to see yours!

      February 26, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Theo Noh : I know it to be false, just as I know your assertion to be false.

      How do you know?

      --------

      @Bobby Brady : Live4Him just admitted the Bible was "historical fiction."

      So, asking a question advances a claim?

      --------

      @JMEF : Lets see Mormons have all sorts of eyewitnesses to their brand of religion walking around today.

      Such as?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • Franklin

      Live4Him
      Archeology only favors the position that Jews were actually living in that area for a long time. It's ahead of Mormonism in that they have zero evidence for it's claims of indian civilizations and massive battles, but nobody contests that the Jews have lived in Israel for a long time. Archeology does not support any of the Bible's supernatural claims, the Exodus, or even any claims to there being a Hebrew kingdom beyond there being a "House of David". As far as we can support with evidence, this "kingdom" was very small scale, also contrary to biblical claims. Sorry, but archeology does not prove the Bible nearly as much as you want.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Smithsonian

      "@Smithsonian : In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
      And what are the underlying facts to support such a conclusion?"

      Why don't you go to the world's largest research center and ask them.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Smithsonian : Why don't you go to the world's largest research center and ask them.

      Ahhh... so your making your typical logic fallacy: Appeal to Authority. So, you really don't KNOW, but your trust in this organization causes you to belief blindly.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Asking anyone to believe The Babble because the Babble says it is the word of some unproven god is the ultimate (il)logic appeal to authority fallacy. At least the folks at the Smithsonian are living breathing scientists that can be interviewed and defend their position. The same cannot be said for any god.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • LMAO

      "Ahhh... so your making your typical logic fallacy: Appeal to Authority. So, you really don't KNOW, but your trust in this organization causes you to belief blindly."

      This is just the excuse because L4H can't handle they've been proven wrong. Especially since the Smithsonian is comprised of 19 Museums, 9 Research Centers and 177 Affiliate Museums.

      So come on L4H show us your research that proves the bible is historical. LOL!

      February 26, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      lie4him had a typo...it meant to say the bible is hysterical.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • William

      From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

      But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.

      The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him
      "So, you really don't KNOW, but your trust in this organization causes you to belief blindly."

      If you had a little introspection, you'd see that that applies perfectly to your position on god.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:38 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      santa
      ouch...Lie4him doesn't like when you use its words against it. Especially so accurately. Touche.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
  11. Eric G

    Give your time, even though it is not tax deductable.

    February 26, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Live4Him

      I agree. We should give not just money, but our time and talents too.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Saraswati

      A few years ago the Independent Sector had a successful Give Five campaign and there was a good bumper sticker that said "Give Five: five percent of your income and five hours a week." Of course it would be nice to up either of those for anyone who can, but I thought that campaign was a good starting point.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
  12. Richard Cranium

    Yeah, pretty sure I'm on the list as well.
    Just another list I'm on.
    It apparently did not like my altering of the name to make it more correct. But when someone really needs a slap, and you can't, you find other ways.

    Putting people on the no response list hasn't stopped Lie 4 him from lying continuously though. Lie4him is making baby jesus cry.

    February 26, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      oops...darn reply button malfunction. Pobody's nerfect.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Science

      You are added to the quorum below

      We know about the list.

      Peace

      February 26, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
  13. lunchbreaker

    Suppose a person is a Christian, but does not have the financial means to help the poor themselves. Should they just not do anything or explore every possible avenue to help the poor? If so what is anti-Christian about lobbying the government to help the poor?

    February 26, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      I do not have money to help the poor, but I volunteer a couple hours a week. Financial assistance is often less than assisting in other ways.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Kevin

      Richard is right. I do both hands-on volunteer work as well as being part of a foundation, and I guarantee yoou that no matter what the charity, the majority of any money given goes to sustaining the organization instead of doing it's supposed charity. More money is spent on paying administrators (not the hand-on people) or for fundraising than will be spent on the actual target. Only a few organizations are able to get lean and mean enough to actually get themoneywhere the donors thought it was going.

      And some charities have some stunning moments of taking cash and keeping it in their coffers instead of getting it to a major disaster. The Red Cross's behavior regarding 9/11 was amazingly self-serving. Catholicism does the same thing, taking U.S. federal money, and oh so much of it goes to their self-sustainance instead of thetarget need.

      It's rather discouraging, actually, trying to help and having the people who take your money keep most of it. Hands on work at the ground level at least gets your intent to the need.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Exactly Kevin
      I know my time is being put to good use and is not wasted...I see the results immediately.
      I know I am helping my community.
      My original reasons for doing it was I found myself bored and watching TV, and wanted to meet some new people with new interests. The people I have met have made everything worth the effort, and I can rest soundly at night, knowing I am helping those around me.

      Find a way to volunteer, you will be surprised how much you get out of it. and by the way....no god required. (even though I help my friends at a couple of religious based charities...they never seem to care that I'm there even though they know I am an atheist.)

      February 26, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      The real question I was getting at was:

      "Is it anti-Christian to lobby the government to help the poor?"

      February 26, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Chad

      ""Is it anti-Christian to lobby the government to help the poor?"

      =>absolutely not.
      At the same time, you need to define "help", that is a very involved term. I firmly believe in the "teach a man to fish" approach.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Dan

      " I firmly believe in the "teach a man to fish" approach."

      But in today's society there are not enough fish to go around.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Chad

      unemployment rate at 7.8%, there's plenty of fish out there

      February 26, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      I agree that there are definitely better ways to help the poor. I am just curious about those that are adamantly against an economic policy, and are somehow claiming it under religious reasons.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @lunchbreaker : Suppose a person is a Christian, but does not have the financial means to help the poor themselves. Should they just not do anything or explore every possible avenue to help the poor?

      They could give of their time and talents. Volunteer at a soup kitchen, Crisis Pregnancy Center, etc. Second, even small amounts of money can help the poor in other countries – $30/month can support a poor child for a month. And I would posit that almost all Americans could give that amount per month – Certainly everyone making more than $50,000/year.

      @lunchbreaker : If so what is anti-Christian about lobbying the government to help the poor?

      Lobbying the government to help the poor with someone else's money only abdicates your responsibilty to help the poor yourself.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Lobbying for gov't assistance and helping the poor yourself are not mutually exclusive actions.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @lunchbreaker : Lobbying for gov't assistance and helping the poor yourself are not mutually exclusive actions.

      If the needs of the poor are being met, then where can the government help?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      IF, capital IF, the needs of the poor are met, there would be no need for gov't assistance. Look, I'm not a Christian so I'm not going to argue what is appropriate Christian political policy. I am ok with my tax dollars helping the poor. If your not, lobby your gov't to stop it.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @lunchbreaker : IF, capital IF, the needs of the poor are met, there would be no need for gov't assistance.

      Now we're getting somewhere. The critical issue is "are the needs of the poor are met" – agreed? I think we can agree that they are not being met. So, the next question is "why not?" There are two possible answers: 1) Non-Christians are not doing their part, and 2) Christians are not following God's commandments. More on this in a moment.

      @lunchbreaker : Look, I'm not a Christian so I'm not going to argue what is appropriate Christian political policy.

      I don't expect you to be. However, I am, so I must base my position on this belief.

      @lunchbreaker : I am ok with my tax dollars helping the poor. If your not, lobby your gov't to stop it.

      If you are giving 10% of your annual earnings (before tax) to a charity(ies), and you are also taxed for helping the poor, would you feel like you're required to double support of the poor? If so, would you cut back on that 10% giving that you were doing? Almost certainly. Thus, it would appear to be a power grab by the government to direct your giving into a 'charity' that is controlled by our wasteful government. Sixty percent of the top 10 charities operate on less than 0.5% of the donated amount given to that charity. Our government uses much higher administrative costs to handle similar governmental 'charities'. So, this power grab dilutes your ability to help the poor.

      Now, back to my earlier point: How many atheists are giving 10% or more of their pre-tax annual earnings to a charity? I acknowledge that many Christians don't tithe, but with the secularization of Christianity, that is not surprising.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Good stuff Live4Him. It's kinda fun when we can find a bit of common ground. I was more looking for answer to a specific question, which I got the answer: Chad says no, you say yes. But in the end, it is about helping the poor. I may not have time to fully respond today, but I have enjoyed the discussion.

      February 26, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Well, as far as taxes are concerned, I study a bit of economics in college, and there is more to the picture when you consider government spending. Whatever we are taxed a part of that goes to admistrative costs. But who are these administrators? People with jobs, paid with tax dollars, but jobs none the less, that give them money to spend in the economy. More money spent in the economy means more jobs available for poor people. So I am ok with that. Now I am a bit biased because I happen to have a job that helps the poor elderly and disabled, and I am paid by your tax dollars. I enjoy helping people, but I admit I don't feel like a saint, I am paid to do it. But I digress. I approach any particular charity as it is presented to me. Personally I don't pull out my tax return everytime I consider giving money. And if paying taxes impairs one's charitability, maybe that person should reexamine thier motivation for giving.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
  14. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    A buffoon who thinks birth control subjugates women is too dumb to be believed. What an azz Lie4ever is. Does it never dawn of this fvcktard that before birth control, women had no means to limit the sizes of their families to the number of kids they could afford? And this dimwit is advocating a return to those days while opposing government help for the poor?

    Too stupid. Really, just too stupid.

    February 26, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • clarity

      I know, Tom – that was one of the dumbest things I've read in quite a while.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
  15. Alias

    I just wish I could believe it was being done for the poor people instead of for the PR.

    February 26, 2013 at 11:26 am |
  16. Chad

    geeze, and here I thought all Christians were right wing nut jobs bent on oppressing the poor??

    who knew..

    February 26, 2013 at 11:23 am |
  17. Honey Badger Dont Care

    The biggest problem here is that most of these so called christians are also supposed to be republicans.

    Republicans who care for the lower class is an oxymoron.

    February 26, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Don'tForget

      Don't forget these are the same people who are against birth control too, against health care for everyone, against taxing the rich.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I think the Benedictine Nun Sister Joan Chitister said it well:
      “I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, and why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of what pro-life is.”

      February 26, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Topher

      I should hope that if you are indeed both a Christian and a Republican that you would put your Christian convictions above your Republican ones.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Don'tForget : Don't forget these are the same people who are against birth control too

      What is the purpose of birth control? To subjugate a woman to the 'needs' of a man? Women are worth more than being a object to use by a man. She has her intellect, her ability to see the big picture, and her ability to be democratic.

      @Don'tForget : against health care for everyone

      Should a person who abuses his/her body (i.e. smoking, pot, drinking, other drugs, primiscous sex, over-eating, etc.) abdicate his/her responsibilities and give them to you so that he/she can continue their lifestyle choice?

      @Don'tForget : against taxing the rich.

      How much should any one person be taxed? What percentage of society should get a free ride in life?

      February 26, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Hubert

      L4H

      "What is the purpose of birth control? "

      The purpose of birth control is to give women control over when they want to have children.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • clarity

      L4H: [ "@Don'tForget : Don't forget these are the same people who are against birth control too
      What is the purpose of birth control? To subjugate a woman to the 'needs' of a man?" . . blah blah blah ]

      You think women take birth control only to satisfy a man's needs?
      What kind of a cave are you living in??? lol.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • meifumado

      @ Live4Him

      How does birth control subjugate women?

      February 26, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • Don'tForget

      "What is the purpose of birth control? To subjugate a woman to the 'needs' of a man? Women are worth more than being a object to use by a man. She has her intellect, her ability to see the big picture, and her ability to be democratic."

      No idiot, it's used for family planning and women do enjoy having sex with their husbands, it's part of having an intimate loving relationship.

      "Should a person who abuses his/her body (i.e. smoking, pot, drinking, other drugs, primiscous sex, over-eating, etc.) abdicate his/her responsibilities and give them to you so that he/she can continue their lifestyle choice?"

      Funny how you jumped to the negative without one thought of the working poor in America. Nearly 1 in 3 working families in U.S. struggle to meet basic needs .

      "How much should any one person be taxed? What percentage of society should get a free ride in life?"

      Funny how it was your Christ that stated "Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." We all know Christians cherry pick the bible.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Does your comment include Mitt Romney, berore he lost and after he lost?

      February 26, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      Mitt Romney is not a Christian, so I'm not sure what you are asking.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Birth control allows women to decide when to have children and how many of them to have. It's no more a means of "subjugating women" than is equal pay for equal work. What a twit.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Three months ago, the UN declared access to birth control a basic human right.
      They reasoning was:
      "Studies have shown that investing in family planning helps reduce poverty, improve health, promote gender equality, enable adolescents to finish their schooling, and increase labourforce participation.

      When a woman is able to exercise her reproductive rights, she is more able to benefit from her other rights, such as the right to education. The results are higher incomes, better health for her and her children and greater decision-making power for her, both in the household and the community."

      “Addressing the unmet need for family planning worldwide would avert 54 million unintended pregnancies and result in 26 million fewer abortions. Research also shows that where family planning supplies, information and services are widely available, abortion rates are lower.”

      February 26, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Topher, Mormons are believers in christ so by definition are christians. You can't discount them, they're as deluded as you.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • Topher

      In Santa we trust

      I can discount them. Their own belief statements say that Christianity is wrong. Mormonism has historically been held as outside orthodoxy by the church. And they teach a different Jesus than the Bible.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him, Healthcare covers much more than the effects of lifestyle choices. None of us can predict accidents, tainted food, tainted water, tainted drugs; women often don't know until late in a pregnancy if a c-sect is required; none of us can prevent a cancer or airborne illness. We need a better system in the USA than we currently have.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Science

      Goo one Santa but I have to include L4H too.

      Peace

      February 26, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Well in your small world and mind Mormon's may not be included as christians but everywhere else they are considered to be a christian cult. Discrimination on your part, Topher; who did you vote for?

      February 26, 2013 at 12:18 pm |
    • Topher

      I would agree they're a cult ... but we're getting off on a rabbit trail here.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Kevin

      Mormons have every bit as much evidence that their religion is the correct one as Christians and Muslims and all the others have: none. They too rely on the circular reasoning of "their book is right because their book is right" and "they will mock you, but that makes you even truthier". They too have a rabble-rouser who got lynched.

      You cannot prove them wrong. And of course, if you don't believe and you are wrong, you go to Mormon hell. You better save yourself and join!

      February 26, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • clarity

      The rabbit trail is that many Xtian sects think to some degree or another that another sect is to some degree a cult. Inherent Xtian conflict. Maybe you should discuss Unitarianism next in contrast to Mormonism. And there is really no more credible evidence for the supernatural Jesus than there is for a visit by the Angel Moroni, so if you buy one, you may as well buy the other.

      Thomas Jefferson, POTUS #3 (from Notes on the State of Virginia):

      Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      To some of us all the different christian religions are cults, no matter how large or small, being a scam for the clergy is what they all have in common. Your rejection of some cults could be seen as bigotry or intolerance, you bad christian you.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Hubert : The purpose of birth control is to give women control over when they want to have children.

      That is easily solved with abstinence.

      --------

      meifumado : How does birth control subjugate women?

      What's the purpose of birth control? It is to allow "responsibility-free sex". Sex is a top need for men, but not for women. They want affection and love. So, women make a trade, giving it while getting the illusion of affection and love. But, if a man REALLY loved the woman, he would keep her for life – i.e. treasure her. So, they use her for the moment and then cast her aside – even if the moment lasts a few months or more. In the end, the woman looks older and less desirable, while the man's earning capacity has increased – making him more desirable.

      --------

      Don'tForget : it's used for family planning and women do enjoy having sex with their husbands, it's part of having an intimate loving relationship.

      Aren't you glad God gave you the ability to enjoy it? If you are a woman, you realize it isn't just the pleasure, but the closeness that is treasured. i.e. That he considers you the most important person in his entire life – and not just this moment.

      Birth control is used for two reasons in a marriage – control the fear that he might leave you if you get pregnant (i.e. he will leave if more responsibilities come up) and to allow for sex outside the marriage.

      Don'tForget : Nearly 1 in 3 working families in U.S. struggle to meet basic needs .

      And yet, they can still afford to buy cigarettes.

      Don'tForget : Funny how it was your Christ that stated

      I noticed that you avoided the issue that I raised. So, let me ask you again:

      "How much should any one person be taxed? What percentage of society should get a free ride in life?"

      February 26, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      "To some of us all the different christian religions are cults, no matter how large or small, being a scam for the clergy is what they all have in common."

      What scam?

      "Your rejection of some cults could be seen as bigotry or intolerance, you bad christian you."

      Could be, depending on who is calling me that. Though if being a bigot includes telling someone who claims to be a Christian but is teaching something anti-Biblical they're a heretic, then call me intolerant. I stand for what God says, not what man's thinks God should have said.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Pretty obvious that you have been brainwashed by church or parents that se*x was something dirty and you are probably one he1l of a repressed individual. Kind of explains what you post on this blog. I do not like you or your beliefs but can feel sympathy for you. Sad troll.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
    • LOL!

      " I stand for what God says, not what man's thinks God should have said"

      LMAO! That is one of the funniest posts yet. LOL! LOL! LOL! The whole bible is what man thinks your God said. LOL!

      February 26, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      What scams? Where to begin, Vatican city the largest and most lucrative, so many evangy types from tent revivals to the modern day TV hustlers; you could do a search on your own just google religious scams. Try.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • Science

      Come on topher you know creation story is a scam . The RCC's FAV.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @JMEF : Pretty obvious that you have been brainwashed by church or parents that se*x was something dirty and you are probably one he1l of a repressed individual.

      Well, I can see a fool when he/she posts. I've previously acknowledged on this blog that I was promiscuous in my youth. Now that I'm older, I've grown in wisdom. How many times do YOU need to repeat a lesson before you learn it? Each person you sleep with is only using you – until that person commits to you for the rest of their life.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      Fair enough. There ARE scams, But you insinuated that all of us are under a scam. I can assure you that's not going on at my church.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Kevin

      I wonder why Topher avoided my point. Does he/she regularly avoid responding to tough questions?

      February 26, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • Jay

      "Fair enough. There ARE scams, But you insinuated that all of us are under a scam. I can assure you that's not going on at my church."

      All religions make money and power from their flock. All religions promise life after death, AND they promise that members of the flock will benefit in that afterlife from their association with the church/synagogue/mosque. Whether it's an amorphous \closeness to God\, or eternity in Heaven, or 72 virgins, they make lots of promises about an afterlife that doesn't exist. They appeal to wishful thinking, egos, and love of life to insent the parishioners to follow and give. Sometimes, religions ask for money directly, and sometimes it's more indirect, but there is always money involved, and there is always a promise that will never be kept. Money and power in exchange for something that will never be recieved, and you can't even ask for a refund! This is a SCAM.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • Topher

      Science

      The Creation story is true. And I'm not RC.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Topher

      Kevin

      What point was that?

      February 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of SEVERE mental illness

      Topher

      In Santa we trust

      I can discount them. Their own belief statements say that Christianity is wrong. Mormonism has historically been held as outside orthodoxy by the church. And they teach a different Jesus than the Bible.
      ---

      Sorry Topher, not your place to judge who is or isnt a Christian. They believe in Jesus get over it.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • clarity

      Gullible4Him: [ "Live4Him
      @Hubert : The purpose of birth control is to give women control over when they want to have children.
      That is easily solved with abstinence." ]

      No it is not easily solved. Just like each case of pedophilia, often affecting a number of people in the Catholic church is not the easily solved by more celibacy – and unnatural state for humans. Time for a reality check idiot.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      Wow you truly are a pathetic individual. Don't try to cloak your opposition to birth control in some supposed noble attempt to "protect" women when what you really want is to force everyone to follow your dogmatic bullshit beliefs.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Not in your house, well that is just fine. One question though, what standard of living does your "shaman" have compared to ALL of the congregation; do not bother answering if you are the "shaman", thank you.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
    • Kevin

      Well aren't you the rude one! Just where do you think you might find my comment?

      Wow, Christians! What nice people. I should have known.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Jay

      @Dan I was going to say you can't fish in most parts of the world especially in the desert.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Topher

      JMEF

      If you are asking how much my pastor makes, I can tell you it's a lot less than I do and he probably works twice as many hours. A pastor's job is to be a shepherd, not to get rich.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Being relatively new to this blog, I have not had the benefit of your out pouring of personal info. If you are a born again sl-ut that has gotten to old to attract the boys, if female, or an old drag queen that has lost it looks, I do not know, but from what I have read in your posts to date you are pretty pathetic.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Traditionally in Latin America the Catholic church has been an advocate for the poor. In the US we have a lot of diversity in our religious groups, and I don't think any of them are pro starvation of the elderly. The majority of Democrats are still Christian and even among Rebublicans there is sympathy for the poor they think have "good reason" to be poor. I'm not sure why this story is shocking anyone. I think there are some problems with the Christian world view in today's world, but it is hardly a group with a general goal to make others suffer.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Science

      |
      You might want to read this Topher

      Facts only Topher

      The creation story is wrong !

      Dover Trial Transcripts

      Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

      http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      Peace

      February 26, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Kevin

      I accept Topher's decision to avoid conversation on my comment as his admission that he cannot prove the legitimacy of his religion, nor can he disprove the legitimacy of others, using anything other than the circular logic of "my book is right because it says it is right."

      February 26, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Jay

      "If you are asking how much my pastor makes, I can tell you it's a lot less than I do and he probably works twice as many hours. A pastor's job is to be a shepherd, not to get rich"

      The median expected salary for a typical Pastor in the United States is $86,125. (salary.com)

      That's a lot more than most in the middle class. They also get a home and a car with that too.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      LOL nice switch around. JMEF said absolutely nothing about payment, he asked about standard of living. Very often, pastors are put up in houses that are owned by the church, usually very nice houses with no mortgage, they are provided with a car, usually a nice car.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Hate to burst your bubble but shepherds make their living by sheering the sheep and when necessary slaughtering the sheep for the meat. Well I have to hope you are not in a cannibal cult. (joke, some time christians have to have that explained, very little humor in that crowd)

      February 26, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Jay

      The 2012-2013 Compensation Handbook for Church Staff, Christianity Today’s bi-annual survey of compensation levels based on 4,600 participating churches, shows senior pastors’ salary and benefits at an average $82,938 this year. This represents a 2.7 percent increase from the $80,745 average reported in 2010. E ighty-four percent of senior pastors say they also receive a housing allowance, which accounts for $20,000 to $38,000 in added compensation.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • Topher

      Kevin

      It's true, I can't prove it to you. But there's plenty of evidence for myself to believe it is true, just as it has to the millions around the globe. And don't give me that "you were born into it" garbage, because I certainly was not. I was an atheist into my late teens.

      And as far as other religions, due to the Law on Non-Contradiction, only one can be right. After looking at the evidence, I've concluded Christianity is true. Thus, the others can't be.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Zingo

      With all the running away Topher does, he must be in great shape!

      February 26, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • Topher

      "$82,938 "

      I can tell you around here it's more like a quarter of that. We're a small church in a small town.

      My question on those numbers would be does that take into account the cost of living? I bet in a similar sized church in New York or another city the salaries would be LOTS higher.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • Topher

      "With all the running away Topher does, he must be in great shape!"

      Right. I'm too busy running away to answer to this ridiculousness anymore.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Science

      JMEF

      Got me laughing on the sheel deal !

      Sort of like the Soul.

      Only on Botton of shoe can be replaced or repaired

      February 26, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Science

      oops sheep

      February 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Jay

      "My question on those numbers would be does that take into account the cost of living? I bet in a similar sized church in New York or another city the salaries would be LOTS higher."

      You might want to look up what the word median means.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Kevin

      Could you debate more honestly please? Why would I say anything about you being born into it? You insult me for what I didn't say? Wow, Christians!

      So you admit you cannot support the legitimacy of your religion beyond "I think so." People in every religion will say the same thing – they looked into it, and they know their choice is right.

      Persoanlly, I am having trouble believing you were actually an atheist, especially in your teens. I'm gonna bet that you actually believed in god all along, but you acted other than you do now.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • Topher

      Kevin

      No insult intended. Sorry if you think I did.

      "So you admit you cannot support the legitimacy of your religion beyond "I think so.""

      No. There's tons of evidence in support of the Biblical worldview. I just said I can't prove it to you.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • Topher

      OK, well, I'm going to go "run away" for a bit. I'll be back in a while, though.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • Kevin

      "Tons of evidence to support the Christian worldview." That is very strangely stated. If you are saying there is tons of evidence to support the existence of any god, much less yours, you are 100% wrong. There is zero evidence.

      Perhaps you mean something else by "worldview"?

      February 26, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Those salary numbers looks a bit fishy, probably due to selectivity and specifying senior members. Here are the BLS figues:

      http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes212011.htm

      And an iinteresting article from Huffington Post on variability by religion:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/13/clergy-salaries-rabbis-priests-pastors-imams_n_1204870.html

      The numbers I've seen indicate even with housing benefits clergy make, on average, slightly less than others with comparable education, but they still have a high level of job satisfaction.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • sam stone

      That's been Topher's schtick from the beginning....."I believe it because I believe it"

      February 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Jesus

      @Topher
      And as far as other religions, due to the Law on Non-Contradiction, only one can be right. After looking at the evidence, I've concluded Christianity is true. Thus, the others can't be.

      A conclusion based on fairy tale evidence or no evidence at all is called conjecture, and that my friend is all you have. A bunch of nonsensical claims that you would not accept if it were coming from your opposition (much like your “Mormons are not Christians” schtick). You have no more evidence than any other religious zealot, so why should anyone take you any more seriously than you take Mormons or Muslims?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • Jesus

      @Topher
      OK, well, I'm going to go "run away" for a bit. I'll be back in a while, though.

      Sure. We’ll see you on another thread in a couple of minutes budy. 😉

      February 26, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • sam stone

      "There's tons of evidence in support of the Biblical worldview. I just said I can't prove it to you."

      Real bang up evidence you got there, Topher

      February 26, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • sam stone

      "And as far as other religions, due to the Law on Non-Contradiction, only one can be right"

      That assumes that there IS an objectively correct god.

      Let me guess, it happens to be the one you follow.....

      February 26, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
    • Topher

      Kevin

      "Perhaps you mean something else by "worldview"?"

      No. I mean there is plenty of evidence not only in support of a god, but specifically the Christian God, and support to conclude the Bible is true. You can review the same evidence and find it lacking if you want ...

      February 26, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher is a clown. A relatively entertaining clown, to be sure. A fine reverse barometer for the rationality of religious faith. A zealot who gets his a$$ handed to him on a regular basis, but comes back with the same drivel. Got to admire the tenacity of his delusion.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      Where is this evidence, Topher? You "blah, blah, fvcking blah" on it all the time.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
    • fintastic

      @topher.................. "No. I mean there is plenty of evidence not only in support of a god, but specifically the Christian God,"

      I would like to ask you please provide this evidence. It is a fantastic claim you are making. You need to back it up with facts.

      February 26, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • Kevin

      You must know the evidence is lacking to even say something like that.

      Evidence, credible evidence, stands on its own. You seem to be saying that your "evidence" is not credible, and probably does not even qualify as evidence.

      Care to share it?

      February 26, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      fintastic: you want topher to back up a claim? are you new in town? topher does not back up claims, he makes assertions and runs like a snivelling little coward when they are challenged.

      February 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm |
  18. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    It's a lot of fun being on Lie4ever's "ignore" list, I have to say. It gives me all the leeway I need. I know the twit reads the posts and is mad as hell but has backed herself into a corner from which she cannot respond.

    February 26, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Science

      I think I am there too.

      Where out thou L4H ???

      February 26, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • Uncivil Toddlers' Coalition

      I declare this to be a quorum.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:20 am |
    • Science

      Uncivil Toddlers' Coalition

      It works ! But will L4H figure it out

      Peace

      February 26, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • Zingo

      How do I get on that list? Can I get all religious nitwits to do that so I don't have to be disturbed by them again?

      February 26, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Science

      Zingo
      The facts in the face seem to set them off age of earth is a good one for L4H

      Creationist YEC/ Chad

      T

      February 26, 2013 at 4:15 pm |
  19. Doc Vestibule

    The legacy of the Christian, Republican "Moral Majority" is massively disproportionate wealth distribution.
    Reagan's trickle down economy did nothing good for the overwhelming majority of the populace, but it sure made the richest people in the land even more wealthy.
    Nothing goes down to the lower echelons of society when the top tier hoards all the wealth and resources.
    There is not a single state in the entire US where a person working full time at a minimum wage job can afford a 2 bedroom apartment, and yet those with the most wealth deride the poor as being lazy and begrudge any tax dollars that go to social programmes.
    Those with the most should be helping those with the least – especially when the rich folk are constantly touting their Christian morality – but that is demonstrably not the case.

    February 26, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Science

      Doc interesting read

      Red Brain, Blue Brain: Republicans and Democrats Process Risk Differently, Research Finds

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130213173131.htm

      February 26, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Doc Vestibule : The legacy of the Christian, Republican "Moral Majority" is massively disproportionate wealth distribution.

      Some of the richest Americans are atheist: Bill Gates, actors/ess, professional sport players, etc. Why don't you mention this group of Americans?

      February 26, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Which actors and sports stars are atheists, Doc? Do you know? I have no idea. But apparently, Lie4ever keeps a list. She seems to have a LOT of lists.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Doc, I don't think Lie4ever quite got the point of your post. Maybe you can use smaller words and type slower.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:12 am |
    • Damocles

      Well, you know, people that want absolute power tend to keep lists.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      Bill gates is immensely charitable. The BIll and Melinda Gates foundation will eradicate polio from the planet in the near future.
      Personally, I find the pantheon of the cult of celebrity to be disgusting. There is no reason why entertainers should be held in such high esteem, and yet people from all corners of society elevate them to near mythical status.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Doc Vestibule : Bill gates is immensely charitable.

      That depends upon what you call charity. Has he been giving more than 10% of his earnings all his life?

      @Doc Vestibule : Personally, I find the pantheon of the cult of celebrity to be disgusting.

      Agreed.

      @Doc Vestibule : There is no reason why entertainers should be held in such high esteem, and yet people from all corners of society elevate them to near mythical status.

      Again, we agree! I think they are over-paid for the work that they do.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • Eric G

      @live4him: Giving 10% of income...... is that how you define charity? Why are you only concerned with how much money someone gives? That's the problem with religious charity. The good deeds are performed for selfish reasons.

      You know nothing of charity.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Eric G : Giving 10% of income...... is that how you define charity? Why are you only concerned with how much money someone gives?

      Charity is based upon love for others. If you only give 0.25% of your income, then only a small part of your heart is loving others. If you are only giving a percentage of your excess, then you also fail to show concern for others. Your heart is where your treasure is.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What utter bullsh!t.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      I don't have access to Gates' tax records, so I don't know if he donated 10% all his life.
      What I do know is that he funds massive charity today and makes sure that his efforts go where he wants them to (notably getting rid of preventable diseases in the 3rd world).
      I don't believe that ti/thing is necessarily a good form of charity.
      Is it charity to give 10% of your money to Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart et al? Those Christians who do assuage their guilt, but does it actually help anyone?
      What about Mormons?
      "Ti.thing is an important test of our personal righteousness. President Joseph F. Smith (1838-1918) said: “By this principle it shall be known who is for the kingdom of God and who is against it. … By it it shall be known whether we are faithful or unfaithful” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 276)."
      And where does the money go?
      According to the Deseret News Agency, the propaganda arm of the LDS, the Church has spent some $750 million internationally on charitable works between 1984 and 2006.
      They have also spent 4 times that amount (approx $3 BILLION) in ¼ of the time to build a mall in Salt Lake City.
      By setting up and administering his Charity himself, Bill Gates makes himself accountable for the works done in his name.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Live4him: "Your heart is where your treasure is."

      I disagree. I believe charity is in your actions, not your bank account. However, if you have the means, I would suggest the following charity. http://www.autismspeaks.org

      They are doing great things and I would like to personally thank you for your support!

      February 26, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Doc Vestibule : I don't have access to Gates' tax records, so I don't know if he donated 10% all his life.

      Then you cannot claim that he has been charitable.

      @Doc Vestibule : What I do know is that he funds massive charity today

      So, he has so much now that he gives some of it away. So what? What has he lost in giving this large amount of money to others?

      @Doc Vestibule : I don't believe that ti/thing is necessarily a good form of charity.

      Why not?

      @Doc Vestibule : Is it charity to give 10% of your money to Jerry Falwell

      No.

      @Doc Vestibule : Those Christians who do assuage their guilt, but does it actually help anyone?

      You've obfuscated this issue. By giving out of their earnings (i.e. rather than excess), the Christian is showing concern for others. What the organization does with that is a different issue. I know that when I give, I ensure the money is spent wisely by the organization,

      @Doc Vestibule : What about Mormons?

      I don't defend any sect, cult, etc. Just Christianity / the Bible.

      @Doc Vestibule : By setting up and administering his Charity himself, Bill Gates makes himself accountable for the works done in his name.

      Accountable to whom?

      February 26, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Eric G : I disagree. I believe charity is in your actions, not your bank account.

      So, a person earning $100,000/year giving $1/year to a charity is just as charitable as a person earning $100,000/year giving $10,000/year to a charity?

      I think not!

      February 26, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Wow

      "Then you cannot claim that he has been charitable"

      Christian stupidity at it's finest. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest transparently operated private foundation in the world. It was founded in 1994. If you want to look at the billions they have used to help man kind just google it moron.

      February 26, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • Eric G

      @live4him: "So, a person earning $100,000/year giving $1/year to a charity is just as charitable as a person earning $100,000/year giving $10,000/year to a charity?

      I think not!"

      First, I think that a person who donates their time to actually work with those less fortunate is of greater value than someone who sends a check.

      Second, I invite you to donate some time to an Autism Speaks event. I think you will find it very rewarding.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "Then you cannot claim that he has been charitable."
      I am claiming that he IS charitable – present tense.

      "So, he has so much now that he gives some of it away. So what? What has he lost in giving this large amount of money to others?"
      He has lost, well, large sums of money.

      Why is ti/thing not neccessarily a good form of charity? Becuase simply forking over $$ to an organization without caring about where those dollars go or what they do is irresonsible. It is a form of abdicating personal responsibility.
      It's like buying "carbon credits" to offset eco-guilt without actually doing anything to be more environmentally friendly.

      "By giving out of their earnings (i.e. rather than excess), the Christian is showing concern for others. What the organization does with that is a different issue."
      How much concern is really being shown by simply cutting a cheque and not caring about what happens after?
      Here's a simple example:
      Joe Hobo on the street asks you for a dollar so he can eat.
      I believe the person who brings Joe a meal is being more charitable than the person who just tosses a dollar into Joe's hat and cares not a whit what happens next.

      @Doc Vestibule : What about Mormons?
      I don't defend any sect, cult, etc. Just Christianity / the Bible.
      I used the Mormon church as an example of a Christian organization that takes ti/thes from its followers, yet give virtually no accounting of what they do with the money. Is the Mormon being charitable when their religion demands they give?

      "Accountable to whom?" To those he is endeavouring to help by letting it be known to anybody who is interested enough to check, what precisely is going on with all the money.

      But let's face it – just giving money is lazy. Ti/thing is like sub-contracting charity.
      True charity is when someone makes a personal effort to improve the situation of another.
      Christ and His Apostles wandered the land personally laying hands on the sick and feeding the hungry.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Lie4Him. The 10% tithe is not charity although some may go to good works. It mainly goes to pay for the expensive real estate and lifestyles of the self-appointed middlemen between you and the god they are desperate to keep you believing in so you'll keep funding their lifestyles.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Eric G : First, I think that a person who donates their time to actually work with those less fortunate is of greater value than someone who sends a check.

      Again, I agree. However, you avoided the issue that I raised – percentage of earning given.

      @Eric G : Second, I invite you to donate some time to an Autism Speaks event. I think you will find it very rewarding.

      I agree – it is very rewarding.

      -----–

      @Doc Vestibule : I am claiming that he IS charitable – present tense.

      Again, you're missing the point. Is Gates upper income, middle income, or lower income? He is actually none of them. He would be in a class by himself – upper, upper, upper income. When Gates gives until it hurts (i.e. he must forego a desired goal), then you can claim that he is charitable.

      @Doc Vestibule : He has lost, well, large sums of money.

      Which he couldn't have spent anyway if he were spending like LiLo. He is earning it faster than he can spend it. So, he hasn't 'lost' anything.

      @Doc Vestibule : Becuase simply forking over $$ to an organization without caring about where those dollars go or what they do is irresonsible.

      How do you prove that the giver doesn't care where those dollars go?

      @Doc Vestibule : How much concern is really being shown by simply cutting a cheque and not caring about what happens after?

      Again – How do you prove that the giver doesn't care where those dollars go?

      @Doc Vestibule : I believe the person who brings Joe a meal is being more charitable than the person who just tosses a dollar into Joe's hat and cares not a whit what happens next.

      I agree.

      @Doc Vestibule : To those he is endeavouring to help by letting it be known to anybody who is interested enough to check, what precisely is going on with all the money.

      So, you agree that he is only revealing what he has choosen to give, rather than revealing what he COULD have given.

      @Doc Vestibule : True charity is when someone makes a personal effort to improve the situation of another. Christ and His Apostles wandered the land personally laying hands on the sick and feeding the hungry.

      Again, we agree. However, he who holds back on his/her wallet also doesn't care. The question is: What area are you unwilling to yield to God's commandment to love others as yourself?

      February 26, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      So apparently, according to Live, charity only "counts" when it's of a certain percentage of what you have.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Tommy

      Hawaii, I imagine that if Gates was a christian that Live4Him would consider him to be the most charitable man in the history of the world, but since Gates is atheist Live4Him has to come up with reasons to downplay what Gates does.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      I'll give you a personal example of chairty.
      My father was a SARTech (Search and Rescue Technician) – a highly trained, special forces operative who regularly put his own life in jeopardy to save those who otherwise would be helpless.
      The motto of the SARTech is "That Others May Live".
      For 35 years, he was an infantry medic. He served in numerous theatres of war on the front lines. He commanded a field hospital in Bosnia in the mid nineties and in the mountains of Iraq during the first gulf war.
      For a lifetime of humanitarianism, he was awarded the Order of St. John (a protestant distinction, even though he is Catholic).
      Even now that he is retired, he volunteers at a homeless shelter and wanders the freezing Canadian streets in the dead of night in the middle of winter to provide food, shelter and whatever else he can..
      When his priest was diagnosed with the same cancer as my father, he was the clergyman's shoulder to cry on.
      When St John's ambulance came soliciting, he instead volunteered his skills in Medical Administration (he was commandant of the Canadian Forces Medical Services School) and ran himself ragged doing it.
      He has dedicated his entire life to helping those in need in any way he can, no matter who or they are and no matter what the personal risk.
      He gives himself – his skill, his word, his blood – but he does NOT give money.

      February 26, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
  20. Lindsey

    Looks like there ARE some Christians in this country who realize that worshipping Christ has nothing to do with hatemongering other people or protecting the powerful and wealthy, and EVERYTHING to do with loving your neighbor and protecting those who NEED protecting. My hat's off to them and my faith is restored in people who TRULY follow the teachings of Jesus Christ,

    February 26, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Lindsey : Looks like there ARE some Christians in this country who realize that worshipping Christ

      Christ commanded Christians to help the poor, not urge the government to do their job. These Christians are abdicating their responsibilities.

      February 26, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • Science

      Two faced for sure !

      Facts only

      Dover Trial Transcripts

      Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

      http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      Peace

      February 26, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lindsey, you know you're spot on when Lie4ever disagrees with you. The bozo doesn't get it: we elected representatives to enact legislation, including taxes, so that we don't have children starving or working in factories, so that we don't have the elderly living in hovels.

      Lie4ever would like to see us return to the days of the rich having it all and the poor having nothing. The moron probably thinks FDR was a communist.

      February 26, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • meifumado

      It's nice that they want to help people but they could help a lot more if they did not waste time on religion.
      You do not need religion in your life to help others.

      February 26, 2013 at 10:40 am |
    • Science

      L4H where did you go ???

      February 26, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      She must be washing someone's feet. Prolly her dog's.

      February 26, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Barry59

      Live4Him stated “Christ commanded Christians to help the poor, not urge the government to do their job. These Christians are abdicating their responsibilities."

      Is it also an abdicating of Christian duty to legislate righteousness – trying to use the government to make laws which forces people live according to Biblical teaching; which I assume you believe? As a Christian I most certainly follow the teachings of scripture (I AM NOT ASHAMED OF THE GOSPEL), however nowhere does it teaches us to force others to obey, or to use the government to satisfy Biblical mandates. I am amazed at how easy many “Christians” like you tend to believe that the government has no role in helping the poor, but are never equally indignant about the same government assisting the rich and powerful. The structure of our society is unlike biblical days where every man fends for himself. If that were the case you would have to purify your own water, put out your own fire if you have one, as well as create your own sewer system. Such things cannot be left up to individuals anymore or they would harm the society in general. Likewise, to believe that the poor will be cared for purely by neighborly concerns is flawed. Even we Christians will sometimes make judgment calls on who should and should not be cared for based upon our standards of likes and dislikes. Should there be concerns about the role of government? Absolutely! Nevertheless, I believe it is a gross mistake use the teachings of Christ to further this end. Do we see unrighteousness around us and should we speak out against it as Christians? YES! We must also recognize that we cannot and were not meant to make them all right. Those who choose to live wantonly will have to give an account, our duty is still to proclaim the truth and love them anyway. Like the scripture declare, “Let the wheat and tear grow together until the day of harvest” (Mat. 13:24-30). One aspect of the parable was dealing with patience less our untimely action also create destruction.

      In our modern soceity we do indeed satisfy the command of Christ when we "help the poor" through our government.

      February 26, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • Christianity is a form of SEVERE mental illness

      Lie4Him

      @Lindsey : Looks like there ARE some Christians in this country who realize that worshipping Christ

      Christ commanded Christians to help the poor, not urge the government to do their job. These Christians are abdicating their responsibilities.

      .
      Wow you are one confused kristian

      February 26, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Barry59 : In our modern soceity we do indeed satisfy the command of Christ when we "help the poor" through our government.

      If you are doing it by force, then you cannot claim to be voluntarily giving to the poor. All that can be claimed is that you've paid your required taxes.

      February 26, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sh!twit, you're not doing it "voluntarily." You're doing it because god told you to and you aren't giving all of it directly to the poor, you're giving it to your church.

      February 26, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.