home
RSS
June 14th, 2013
04:05 PM ET

Superman: Flying to a church near you

By Eric Marrapodi, Co-Editor CNN Belief Blog

Baltimore, Maryland (CNN) - As the new Superman movie takes flight this weekend, filmmakers are hoping the Man of Steel lands not only in theaters, but also in pulpits.

Warner Bros. Studios is aggressively marketing "Man of Steel" to Christian pastors, inviting them to early screenings, creating Father’s Day discussion guides and producing special film trailers that focus on the faith-friendly angles of the movie.

The movie studio even asked a theologian to provide sermon notes for pastors who want to preach about Superman on Sunday. Titled “Jesus: The Original Superhero,” the notes run nine pages.

“How might the story of Superman awaken our passion for the greatest hero who ever lived and died and rose again?” the sermon notes ask.

(Disclaimer: CNN, like Warner Bros., is owned by Time Warner.)

Similar campaigns to corral the country's large number of Christians into the movie theater have been used for "Les Miserables," "Soul Surfer" and "The Blind Side," all of which had at least some faith angle.

Baltimore pastor Quentin Scott is among dozens of ministers who received an e-mail invitation from Grace Hill Media, a Hollywood-based Christian marketing firm, to an early screening of “Man of Steel.”

“There was an actual push to say `We’re putting out something that speaks to your group,' ” said Scott, one of the pastors of Shiloh Christian Community Church in Baltimore.

At first, Scott said, he didn’t buy the religious pitch. Then he decided to attend a free midweek screening in Baltimore.

“When I sat and listened to the movie I actually saw it was the story of Christ, and the love of God was weaved into the story," said the pastor.

"It was something I was very excited about that with the consultation of our senior pastor, we could use in our congregation.”

CNN Entertainment: 'Man of Steel' director Zack Snyder on Superman's Christ-like parallels

Grace Hill’s sermon notes are specially designed for churches like Shiloh that integrate multimedia into their services.

“Let’s take a look at the trailer for `Man of Steel,’” the notes suggest after briefly introducing the movie’s history and themes.

The man behind the notes, Pepperdine University professor Craig Detweiler, has prepared similar material for films like 2009’s "The Blind Side" and "The Book of Eli" from 2010.

The spiritual themes in “Man of Steel” are abundant, Detweiler said, and his notes enable Christians to thoughtfully engage with pop culture instead of shunning it.

“All too often, religious communities have been defined by what they're against. With a movie like `Man of Steel,’ this is a chance to celebrate a movie that affirms faith, sacrifice and service,” Detweiler said.

It will be hard for even casual Christians to miss the messianic metaphors in "Man of Steel.”

The movie focuses on the origins of Superman, who was sent from the planet Krypton as an infant to save his species.

He is raised by surrogate parents who help him grapple with his special powers, even though they don’t fully understand the source of his extraordinary abilities.

When he turns 33, Superman must willingly sacrifice himself to save the human race.

Sound familiar?

If that’s not enough, as a boy Clark Kent is shown wrestling with his superpowers, and asks his earthly dad, Jonathan Kent, “Did God do this to me?”

“Somewhere out there you have another father and he sent you here for a reason,” says Jonathan Kent.

Even the visuals hammer home the messianic motifs.

During a fight with his archenemy, General Zod, Superman plunges down to Earth, his arms outstretched as if he were being crucified. Of course, he rises again.

Detweiler writes in the sermon notes, “What Jesus and Superman both give us, through their `hero’ actions but also their `human’ actions – is hope.”

“I think it’s a very good thing that Hollywood is paying attention to the Christian marketplace,” said Ted Baehr, who runs Movieguide, a website that reviews family friendly films from a Christian perspective.

“Where it gets sticky is when they try to manipulate the market and when Christians try to manipulate Hollywood. But here I think we have the right balance.”

But other Christians are heaving a supersized sigh at the movie marketing.

"Any pastor who thinks using `Man of Steel Ministry Resources' is a good Sunday morning strategy must have no concept of how high the stakes are, or very little confidence in the power of God’s word and God’s spirit," writes P.J. Wenzel, a deacon and Sunday School teacher at Dublin Baptist Church in Ohio.

"As they entertain their congregants with material pumped out from Hollywood’s sewers, lives are kept in bondage, and people’s souls are neglected," according to Wenzel, who said he was e-mailed information about the movie.

Scott, the Baltimore pastor, said he knows that Warner Bros. Studios has a financial incentive in pushing the film to pastors.

But he said that’s fine with him. “They’re using us but in fact we’re using them,” he said.

His church won't show clips from the movie this weekend because it had already planned out its service. But he plans to use them later, during meetings with the church’s men’s group.

“If you give me another opportunity to talk to someone about Jesus Christ, and I can do that because of your movie, that’s a win for me, because it is about spreading the Gospel.”

CNN's Erin McPike contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Celebrity • Christianity • Church • Entertainment • Media • Movies

soundoff (6,545 Responses)
  1. derp

    Comic books are the inerrant word of Golub.

    Therefor superman is our lord and saviour.

    You can't prove he isn't.

    June 19, 2013 at 11:37 am |
  2. Knights Who Say...

    Chaplain and students:
    O Lord! Ooh, you are so big! So absolutely huge. Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.
    ________________________________________
    Chaplain and students (singing a hymn):
    O Lord, please don't burn us.
    Don't grill or toast your flock.
    Don't put us on the barbecue
    Or simmer us in stock.
    Don't braise or bake or boil us,
    Or stir-fry us in a wok.

    June 19, 2013 at 9:36 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Monty Python made millions thanks to Jesus.

      June 19, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • derp

      "Monty Python made millions thanks to Jesus"

      They actually made millions making fun of jeebus.

      June 20, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Yes derp, it's easy to follow satan. Remember, you made zero.

      June 20, 2013 at 6:44 pm |
  3. Reality

    Some added reasons why there is no god:

    o
    M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)

    The Muslim Conquest of India

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

    Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*

    1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")

    2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)

    3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)

    4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)

    5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)

    6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)

    7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)

    8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)

    9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C

    10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)

    11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)

    12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)

    13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C

    14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C

    15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C

    16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)

    17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)

    18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)

    19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)

    20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C

    June 19, 2013 at 8:43 am |
  4. Freedom of thought

    I don't believe Superman exists. But I don't care if he's in your churches, I don't mind if you talk about him, and if you put a giant superman up in a public square it doesn't bother me.

    June 19, 2013 at 4:38 am |
    • Modalitist

      What if it falls over on you and turns you into a paraplegic? Will you care then?

      June 19, 2013 at 4:52 am |
    • One one

      Would you mind if you were forced to pray to him 5 times a day?

      June 19, 2013 at 6:17 am |
    • saggyroy

      How can you deny Superman? You must hate Superman! DC Comics proves Superman exists!

      June 19, 2013 at 6:18 am |
    • Freedom of thought

      Modalist..think hard and I'm sure you might be smart enough to answer your own question.
      One one, last time I checked Superman much like any other thing to worship was entirely optional.
      Saggroy...I'm glad you have found Superman, but he's just not for me. If you want to leave DC comics in my hotel night stand be my guest.

      June 19, 2013 at 7:01 am |
  5. Bootyfunk

    superman - an alien that can fly, with super strength, heat-ray vision, cold breathe, bullets and knives bounce off him, came to save all the humans of earth, and has s.ex with lois lane

    jesus – a human cult leader that can walk on water, heal the sick and demon-possessed, came to save christians, killed by crucifixion, virgin

    yes, very very similar in that they are both fictional characters.. LOL.

    superman > jesus

    June 19, 2013 at 1:19 am |
  6. Reality

    One of the reasons why gods are myths just like Superman:

    Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/

    From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

    Even now Catholic/Christian professors (e.g.Notre Dame, Catholic U, Georgetown) of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

    To wit;

    From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:

    "Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
    Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.

    Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

    Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

    The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

    Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

    The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "

    "In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
    http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

    The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

    With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

    An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

    p.4

    "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

    p.168. by Ted Peters:

    Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "

    So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

    June 19, 2013 at 12:28 am |
    • Reality

      Some added reasons why there is no god:

      THE INFAMOUS ANGELIC CONS --

      Joe Smith had his Moroni. (As does M. Romney)

      "Latter-day Saints like M. Romney also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

      Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

      Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).

      Jesus and his family had/has Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented. (As does BO and his family)(As do Biden and Ryan)

      The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

      Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie/horn-blowing thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:30 am |
    • Wisdom

      Trust in God, not internet atheists.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:44 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      What is God?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:50 am |
    • Hiro

      Think what you would have been now, if instead of being fed with tales and old wives' fables in childhood, you had been crammed with geography and natural history!

      ~Charles Lamb

      June 19, 2013 at 12:57 am |
    • Wisdom

      The power behind life. The one who knows you. Be open to miracles in your life. There is more to life than meets the eye – this is very difficult for the American who has been raised to be a consumer.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:58 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      "Trust in God, not internet atheists."

      Extremely hard to trust imaginary creatures.

      June 19, 2013 at 6:05 am |
  7. maximo

    Our world has

    Biology, paleontology, psychology, chemistry are fields of study for evolution.
    Why are mathematics and physics not fields of study for evolution?

    Why have the laws of physics not evolved?

    June 19, 2013 at 12:24 am |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      How can you talk about the laws of science when the Bible claims they are all OPTIONAL according to God's whims?

      Get real.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:30 am |
    • tallulah13

      Have you ever tried reading a science book, Maximo? Or heck, if that's too much, maybe a pamphlet or just Cliff Notes. Why don't you try learning things for yourself instead of trying to get other people to do your work for you?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:36 am |
    • redzoa

      I was under the impression that there was a degree of evolution in physics in the immediate aftermath of the big bang. Nonetheless, if this is a serious question, it betrays a fundamental miscomprehension of the Theory of Evolution as typically restricted to the explanation for extant and extinct biodiversity on this planet.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:53 am |
    • maximo

      Are you referring to miracles?

      If so, I would say that miracles would not be miracles if not for the laws of physics.

      Meaning that God can create the laws of physics and still intervene to cause an act that defies the laws of physics.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:57 am |
    • maximo

      redzoa, point taken.
      But the OP was in the larger context of a thread below (10:48pm).
      It was said somewhat tongue in cheek.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:01 am |
    • redzoa

      I'm not a mathematician or physicist; my background is biology. But it appears that you are claiming an inference as truth in your jest, i.e. your pared-down fine-tuning argument is a misapplied teleological argument based on an inference that certain constants indicate design. Like ID in general, one can't reliably distinguish between "apparent" (i.e. purely natural) and "actual" (i.e intentional) design in the observation of a given pattern without an understanding of the mechanism involved in the production of the pattern. That logic and observation by humans converges on an empirically defined set of constants does not necessitate that these properties are the product of an external, first-cause conscious intent; they may simply reflect the purely natural constraints of this existence as we understand it.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:25 am |
    • maximo

      redzoa,

      "it appears that you are claiming an inference as truth in your jest, i.e. your pared-down fine-tuning argument is a misapplied teleological argument based on an inference that certain constants indicate design. "

      No, this is much different than fine tuning.

      The number 'e' has same fascinating properties in the mathematics realm alone. And its used when describing numerous physical laws. The math and physics are independent. Why does 'e' pop up in the laws of physics in so many places?

      As clarified above, I think all your other comments apply only to fine tuning.

      June 19, 2013 at 2:14 am |
    • Modalitist

      maximo, the fine structure constant is going to show up later as part of the quantum gravity equations and is one of the touchpoints for including quantum gravity in the Standard Model, as this seems the most likely expansion of our knowledge in that direction, in my opinion, but then you don't want my opinion, do you? That's okay. I'm not talking to you anyway.

      June 19, 2013 at 4:22 am |
    • Modalitist

      I am playing the prophet here, in a mathematical sense. I left out the usual disclaimers in the above post. My bad.

      June 19, 2013 at 4:27 am |
    • Modalitist

      maximo, in response to your original post, math and physics do indeed play a part in evolutionary studies. Measurements must be taken as part of a good comprehensive record, and many of those measurements are going to be physics-related as well as the math used in everything including your train ticket to la-la-land, now boarding at Gate 14 to your left. Your other left.

      June 19, 2013 at 4:38 am |
    • Science

      Hey maximo

      Geology............the dirt guys amd evolution ?

      18 Major Events in the Geological Theatre ..............look it up provided by Yale University,

      June 19, 2013 at 6:23 am |
    • Science

      By the way maximo..................playing with a chondrite I cut in half the other day and this always blows me away,

      I have a simple compass sitting on top of cut............the needle is completely backwards.

      South is pointing West and North is pointing East...............with a button magnet you can usually find where the poles split/are.

      June 19, 2013 at 7:49 am |
    • Science

      Hey maximo chew on native iron stones all your life...............it drives the medical tests nuts !

      19. Solar nebula (repeat)
      Most meteorites are very old, as old as the solar system (4.6 billion years). Because meteorites haven't changed much since then, they are the best clues we have to the origin and history of the solar system and of the Earth. (Painting by Don Dixon, NASA JSC photo S76-25001)

      http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/education/SlideSets/ExpMetMys/Slides35-42.htm

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/

      June 19, 2013 at 9:12 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Our world has Clown schools for those tired of acting as they derived from apes.

      June 19, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
  8. maximo

    Observer & red Tom,
    When you don't want to respond, then you clutter up the page? Interesting. Is that sort of like covering your ears and closing your eyes and humming real loud?

    June 19, 2013 at 12:20 am |
    • Obsever & The Real Tom

      YOU ARE FRED. DON'T DENY IT. WE CAN TELL. FRED OUR PRECIOUS.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:23 am |
    • maximo

      I guess I'm not up on all the urban dictionary stuff. I presume that was an insult?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:26 am |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      Are you really so delusional that you think either of us put in that childish comment?

      Wow. You are much more likely the source.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:28 am |
    • Head Up

      Welcome to the board.

      There are some posters like Observer, The Real Tom and Akira that are a little paranoid and are convinced that other posters like Chad, Topher and Heaven Sent are posting under different names. So they get very angry and start calling them liars.

      I arrived on this board a few months ago completely surprised these angry and strange acting internet tough guys and ladies started accusing me of being someone else. And then started calling me a liar. And then started hurling insults at me when I posted in other threads.

      Do what 98% of the posters on this board do: ignore them.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:36 am |
    • tallulah13

      There are trolls that borrow a lot of people's names. Never seen this "head's up" person before, though. I wonder how many names he/she posts under?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am |
    • Observer

      Head Up

      Welcome to the board.

      "There are some posters like Observer, The Real Tom and Akira that are a little paranoid and are convinced that other posters like Chad, Topher and Heaven Sent are posting under different names. So they get very angry and start calling them liars."

      I have never claimed that people are using multiple posting names. I am not paranoid. and I have never called anyone a liar unless they have told lies about me.

      You need to pay more attention so you won't look so IGNORANT again in the future.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:40 am |
    • Head Up

      Yeah, I am a liar. I just like stirring up shit about people. Plus, Observer, The Real Tom, and Akira have all handed my ass to me in debates, and I can't stand that, so I change my name yet again and vóila! Back again. Do what 100% of the people do here: call me a troll.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:48 am |
    • Head Up

      I have to change my handle because somebody always steals it and says hateful things about God. And some people like The Real Tom badger me and accuse me of being someone I'm not. Why would I keep that same name? Do you think people like being harassed by people like The Real Tom?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:50 am |
    • Head Up

      98% of the posters ignore these people because they know the truth.
      These people are very unhappy with their lives.
      They have very little power – but they can feel powerful on here when they are yelling slurs at people they don't like it.
      Poor guys and gals – God asks us to love these people who are poor in spirit. So most don't fight back or yell at them.
      They try to help. Even as they continue to hate and spew garbage at their fellow man.

      Sad people.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:55 am |
    • Observer

      Head Up,'

      "they continue to hate and spew garbage at their fellow man."

      I don't hate anyone. I'm not like the Christians who trash gays or pro-choice people.

      I admit when I am wrong. Please give ONE EXAMPLE of me "spewing garbage" and your PROOF that I am wrong.

      I'll wait. Good luck. Try not to run away now.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:01 am |
    • Head Up

      So, a person just stole my handle YET AGAIN, and tried to make me feel bad by claiming I'm a troll because I changed my handle.

      Yet this person changed his/her handle, too. And did they exact same thing a troll does.

      Nice logic there atheist or secular humanist or whatever politically correct name you prefer.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:05 am |
    • Observer

      Head Up,

      I will agree with you that no one should take someone else's handle. People like Heaven Sent can say enough foolish things without anyone putting words in their mouth.

      So what is your answer to proving me wrong?

      June 19, 2013 at 1:09 am |
    • Hiro

      It seems to me that the majority of the people here are atheists, Head Up. And since many people talk to the people you are gossiping about, it would seem that they are not ignored at all.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:11 am |
    • Head Up

      "Nice logic there atheist or secular humanist or whatever politically correct name you prefer."

      Is it your contention that only atheists are trolls? Because if you have been around here as you claim, you have had to have read 'faith's' posts. That one is a classic troll.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:19 am |
    • Head Up

      Sorry, dude, you come off as a jerk. I don't know you, but I can honestly say that by just briefly reading your posts.

      "I don't hate anyone. I'm not like the Christians who trash gays or pro-choice people."

      What a humbled att.itude and loving nature you have. Demonstrating that *you* are soooo much better than *those people*.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:19 am |
    • Head Up

      Is it your contention that only atheists are trolls?

      NO. BUT THE SHORT TIME I'VE BEEN HERE WHEN AN ATHEIST GETS TROLLED, THE FELLOW INTERNET ATHEISTS BLAME ALL CHRISTIANS AND IT IS DEEMED THE MOST HORRIBLE THING THAT EVER HAPPENED.

      WHEN A CHRISTIAN GETS TROLLED THE ATHEIST LOOKS THE OTHER WAY.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:22 am |
    • Hiro

      "They have very little power – but they can feel powerful on here when they are yelling slurs at people they don’t like it."
      "Sorry, dude, you come off as a jerk."
      "Poor guys and gals – God asks us to love these people who are poor in spirit. So most don’t fight back or yell at them."
      "NO. BUT THE SHORT TIME I’VE BEEN HERE WHEN AN ATHEIST GETS TROLLED, THE FELLOW INTERNET ATHEISTS BLAME ALL CHRISTIANS AND IT IS DEEMED THE MOST HORRIBLE THING THAT EVER HAPPENED.

      WHEN A CHRISTIAN GETS TROLLED THE ATHEIST LOOKS THE OTHER WAY."

      And yet, here you are doing the same thing...pot, meet kettle. You're all over the place with your message. You come on here and start to immediately slam 3 people, and act outraged when some troll does it to you? My God. Grow up.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:37 am |
    • Observer

      Head Up,

      "Sorry, dude, you come off as a jerk. I don't know you"

      That's for sure. You started off with several false statements about me and it hasn't changed. I told you I don't approve of people using other people's handles and then you turn around and claim "WHEN A CHRISTIAN GETS TROLLED THE ATHEIST LOOKS THE OTHER WAY.". I'm not an atheist but an agnostic, but your FALSE statement was close enough.

      I am not going to apologize for not trashing gays like Christian HYPOCRITES do. Same for not trashing pro-choice people when the Bible NEVER mentions abortion. If I come across as looking down on hypocrites and bigots, so be it.

      It's too late to argue further with someone who hasn't done his homework. Try to be more fair and honest next time. Good luck.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:45 am |
    • the real Tom

      Head Up, you say you've been here for some time, yet this is the first time I've seen that screen name. Why do you suppose people think you're a poster who's changed his name? Duh.

      In fact, I think you most recently posted as "Look Up." Not a very imaginative switch, there, buddy. Then again, you don't appear to have much in the way of brain function, so.

      June 19, 2013 at 7:49 am |
  9. Vic

    It is almost 🕛

    June 18, 2013 at 11:52 pm |
    • Observer

      Vic,

      If you can't figure out how to say whatever it is in your own words, it's not too likely that anyone will go to your source and long cut-and-pastes just show you can't summarize things.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:57 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Here Vic, perhaps this is what you meant.

      Music to Eat is the only album ever produced by avant garde rock band Hampton Grease Band. It was released in 1971. The album is a double album, which is apocryphally said to have been the second-lowest selling album in Columbia's history, second only to a Maharishi Mahesh Yogi yoga instructional record. This record compares with the likes of Captain Beefheart, Frank Zappa & the Mothers of Invention, and Pere Ubu.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:03 am |
    • Obsever & The Real Tom

      THEY YOU ARE CHAD. WE CAN TELL. DON'T DENY IT OUR WE WILL CALL YOU A LIAR. EVERYONE WE DON'T LIKE IS A LIAR.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:20 am |
  10. Observer

    We haven't sunk that low yet, but this conversation reminds me of one of my all-time favorite blog comments:

    A believer said that proof of God's genius was that God made a day EXACTLY 24 hours long.

    Can't top that.

    June 18, 2013 at 11:51 pm |
    • Mitchell1660

      Huh?!!

      June 19, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      There's a certain quaint charm to that logic.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:02 am |
    • Observer

      @I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that,

      Yes. It's scary to think about the mathematics involved if a day was, say, 23 hours and 17 minutes long.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:10 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Observer

      I didn't find the quaint charm from the lack of knowledge regarding the Earth's rotation. I think it's cute that the person in question sees the 24 hour day as being perfectly suited towards humanity, rater than humanity having evolved to adapt to the 24 hour day.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:17 am |
    • fiftypercenthollow

      Okay so what about the perfect tilt of the earth, distance from the sun, gravity, oxygen concentration and many others that are impossible odds. Seems a better explanation than random occurrence. I do happen to know these are true, but you might say they probably happened else where, right, for right now you are playing a game with your mortality, will you know the answer in your lifetime, I know I won't... stop acting tough... the limits of knowledge you can't argue that.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:24 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      "Okay so what about the perfect tilt of the earth, distance from the sun, gravity, oxygen concentration and many others that are impossible odds"

      Your ignorance doesn't mean we don't have answers.

      1) Tilt of the Earth. Why do you think it's perfect? If we didn't have axial tilt then there wouldn't be seasons. So what? Personally I could do without winter. The prevailing theory is that the early Earth was knocked off it's axis by collision with another planet with the remnants coalescing to form our moon.
      2) Distance from the sun. The Goldilocks principle. Planets form around stars. Some percentage of those will occur in the correct temperature zone relative to its parent star. We are just one example. If ours hadn't then life would never have taken hold here.
      3)Gravity. It is what it is. If we imagine the force of gravity as a having greater or lesser value than it does then all matter in the universe would have either collapsed into black holes or never produced galaxies and stars in the first place. In which case we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Happenstance doesn't require agency.
      4) Oxygen concentration. You do know that the early Earth had no free atmospheric oxygen...right? Anaerobic cellular life was first to appear and liberated oxygen as a waste product. Biological forces are primarily responsible for creating our present atmosphere.

      June 19, 2013 at 7:44 am |
    • the real Tom

      Why do people like 50percent fail to grasp the fact that the earth wasn't made to suit US-WE adapted to fit IT! If the factors mentioned had been different, then either life would not have occurred at all or it would have been very different forms of life. What are nuts like this going to do when life is discovered elsewhere in the universe?

      June 19, 2013 at 10:21 am |
  11. Observer

    maximo,

    Are you really trying to claim that 1 + 1 would equal 3 if God hadn't set it up to equal 2?

    June 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Do you sense the presence of Chad?

      June 18, 2013 at 11:38 pm |
    • Observer

      The real Tom,

      If he runs away and hides, then we'll know it could have been Chad.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:40 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      I bet you guys are boyfriends.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:48 pm |
    • the real Tom

      That would be difficult, Big Shiz, as I'm female.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      Where you born female,or did you make a change?

      June 18, 2013 at 11:53 pm |
    • Observer

      Grow up, kid.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:13 am |
    • Obsever & The Real Tom

      CHHHHHHAAAAAAADDDDDDD ALL DAY LONG. ON OUR BRAINS.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:19 am |
    • Science

      Hey Obsever & The Real Tom

      Since you brought chadie up do you think he/racherl could use the 3-D printer and print and new bone for the head ?

      June 19, 2013 at 7:05 am |
    • the real Tom

      BIg Shiz, if you don't want people to call you stupid, then don't be stupid.

      June 19, 2013 at 7:37 am |
  12. Vic

    Evolution/Abiogenesis/Natural Selection CAN NOT Explain ♂ & ♀

    June 18, 2013 at 11:34 pm |
  13. Vic

    Evolution/Abiogenesis/Natural Selection CAN NOT Explain ♂ & ♀

    June 18, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
    • The real Tom

      I doubt you can explain what point you are attempting to make, Vicky.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Give it time, Vic. After all, it's only been a couple of hundred years since science has escaped the control of religion. It's amazing how much we've learned about our natural world in that time, and that knowledge will only grow.

      The more we learn about the world around us, the less it is possible for a reasonable person to believe that the bible is anything more than a book of myths.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:55 am |
    • redzoa

      wikipedia has a nice introduction to the evolution of se-xual reproduction. Perhaps you could start there . . .

      June 19, 2013 at 1:37 am |
  14. maximo

    "You could make a better point, maximo. "
    I think this a good point that merits some good discussion if you guys are willing? Where's redzoa?

    "What we mean by rational is what best conforms to order as we perceive it in the Universe. That order does preceed us."
    Irrelevant. Un
    Don't see your relevancy here. Are you saying that the concept of numbers, laws of math, 3+3=6, etc. are not rational concepts. That instead they are irrational, as in the case of evolution. (We both agree non-theistic evol is an irrational, mindless process.)

    "But perhaps that order is present in any possible world, and that doesn't point to a special creation of an intelligent agent."

    Then what are the alternatives for the existence of rational math laws and concepts that you agree existed before man?

    June 18, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • The real Tom

      They didn't "exist" before man. They are the ways man interprets what exists.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm |
    • maximo

      OP was a reply to thread starting at 10:48 pm same day.
      See replies there please.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:13 am |
    • S-3B Viking

      Modalitist,

      I'm learning....was once an Evangelical Christian...so there is progress.

      June 19, 2013 at 6:15 am |
  15. Vic

    Evolution/Abiogenesis/Natural Selection CAN NOT Explain &#9794 & &#9792

    June 18, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
  16. maximo

    Question for material, non-theistic evolutionists who deny a rational, intelligent designer God.
    I ask an honest question our of ignorance:

    Consider:
    3+3=6 is a truth that was certainly true before man discovered it.
    Numbers are conceptual. They are a rational, conceptual truth fully perceived by a rational mind. Some numbers/concepts go past our ability to understand (such as concept of infinity) but still existed before man.
    Man certainly did not invent the concept of numbers or the truth 3+3=6 any more than he invented laws of planetary orbits or Newton's laws.
    Numbers and mathematical truths certainly did not and do not evolve.

    (Of course man invents notations & techniques to communicate and work with and manipulate these truths; and will discover more going forward. )

    If man does not invent numbers and they do not evolve, then from what do material evolutionists say such a rational concept came?

    June 18, 2013 at 10:48 pm |
    • The real Tom

      You are wrong. Man DID invent numbers. Where else did you think they came from, dodo?

      June 18, 2013 at 10:51 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      From your butthole?

      June 18, 2013 at 10:52 pm |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      A caveman could figure out that if he looks at one foot and then bring in his other foot, he will have "twice" as many toes. It doesn't take any math to figure out that "mathematical" concept. Kids learn beginning math concepts through pictures of multiple occurrences of an object. It is VISUAL, not some man-made concept.

      Try again. You flunked math.

      June 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Most of us are willing to say we don't know, maximo. Just as we don't know if there was an intelligent designer / cause for the Universe. There's no obvious need for one just now, so non-theists don't bring one into such things.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • maximo

      Observer,
      You are making my point, sort of.
      The caveman and the elementary school students "discover" a rational, conceptual truth.
      That truth was not created. It did not evolve. That truth was here before man had a rational mind. Before man even existed.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:15 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Man did invent numbers and some animals have the ability to grasp the simpler concepts. Just because there is a forest doesn't mean that a god gave us a system to count the trees.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
    • The real Tom

      What "truth"? There's no "truth" there. We assign values and names to objects and concepts. They're not even universal.

      I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      You could make a better point, maximo. What we mean by rational is what best confiorms to order as we perceive it in the Universe. That order does preceed us. But perhaps that order is present in any possible world, and that doesn't point to a special creation of an intelligent agent.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:21 pm |
    • maximo

      santa,
      numbers were not invented by man.
      Notations were, but not the concept of "three-ness"

      Man discovers this when he counted his toes perhaps.

      But he did not invent numbers or the mathematical laws.

      They are discovered.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:23 pm |
    • maximo

      real tom,

      you say numbers are not universal?

      Did I understand you correctly?

      June 18, 2013 at 11:25 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Who invented numbers so? I'd guess that my ass-hole travelled back in time with a jive-talking robot and pulled numbers out of Leonard Nimoy's butt crack.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:27 pm |
    • The real Tom

      maxi, dear, you're the one who seems to have difficulty with reading comprehension.

      Man invented the concept of numbers.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:27 pm |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      If you are claiming that God invented mathematics by deciding that adding one more rock to "two" rocks make "three" rocks, you are way off. Man could visualize the result without God having to "invent" numbers.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:30 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      The real Tom

      I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that man invented the concept of numbers. Mathematics seems to be the one universal language.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • maximo

      "You could make a better point, maximo. "
      I think this a good point that merits some good discussion if you guys are willing? Where's redzoa?

      "What we mean by rational is what best conforms to order as we perceive it in the Universe. That order does preceed us."
      Irrelevant. Un
      Don't see your relevancy here. Are you saying that the concept of numbers, laws of math, 3+3=6, etc. are not rational concepts. That instead they are irrational, as in the case of evolution. (We both agree non-theistic evol is an irrational, mindless process.)

      "But perhaps that order is present in any possible world, and that doesn't point to a special creation of an intelligent agent."

      Then what are the alternatives for the existence of rational math laws and concepts that you agree existed before man?

      June 18, 2013 at 11:32 pm |
    • Modalitist

      We, as sapient beings, conceptualize the abstract and imaginary concepts of numbers, math, and conceptualize these things in relation to other things and concepts.
      Numbers are not some intrinsic property of the universe. Anyone who thinks so is a brainless prat.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:40 pm |
    • The Russian Judge...

      awards you a 10 for the use of "prat."

      June 18, 2013 at 11:41 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Modalitist

      I guess I'm a brainless prat.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:43 pm |
    • the real Tom

      "I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that man invented the concept of numbers. Mathematics seems to be the one universal language."

      How would that preclude its having been created by man? Where else would it come from? Please tell me you don't think it came from god.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Well, maximo, the order that precedes us is pecisely where you might try to pin God on all this. Mathematician Roger Penrose recognizes that order as something in a way apart from our reality that can be thought of as the underpinnings of perceivable reality. And it is what we use when we construct logic and construct concepts such as numbers. So you're really fixed on something that is the result of something much larger.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:53 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      No I don't. I believe mathematics is intrinsically linked to the universe. Whatever our universe's origins are (whether we're in a computer simulation, part of a multiverse or whether the universe is cyclical), I believe mathematics is an intrinsic element of the universe and is not a man-made concept.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:55 pm |
    • maximo

      Did man make up the fact that 2+2=4, or did he discover it?

      Did man make up the laws of physics (described so rationally by the rational laws of mathematics), or did he discover them?

      June 18, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      Let's try this again.

      Are you claiming that 1 + 1 would equal 3 if God didn't decide to set the result to 2?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • maximo

      Did man create the laws of mathematics that so elegantly describe the laws of planetary orbits?

      Or did he discover those laws?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:04 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      But what is God?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:07 am |
    • maximo

      Did man create the concept of infinity?

      Or did he discover it?

      Does a single cell mindless and irrationally evolve into a rational mind that can ponder such questions as whether there are more integers than even integers?

      Oh, I forgot, given enough time ... he would. My bad.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:07 am |
    • Modalitist

      ""'ImsorryDave""', you are engaging in a fallacious bit of reasoning, making a leap that is neither indicated nor suggested by anything we know about physics.
      Just because we can formulate a theory using abstract notions of mathematical concepts does not mean that the concepts are intrinsic to physics as some sort of fabric to the multi-dimensional universe, it just means that we use math as a tool to provide a framework we can understand for what we see in abstract terms that are easily grasped by more than one person so that we can communicate them.
      If I imagine a visual concept, I cannot transfer this concept using telepathy. We don't have telepathy. So we use other ways of communicating that rely upon our common brain structures to be somewhat understood. This is communication, not an intrinsic part of the universe. It is a way of communicating these mathematical ideas, but concepts are not real.
      Get that through your head: Imaginary concepts are NOT MAGICAL. They are imaginary and they stay that way.
      They exist only in our heads. Communicating these ideas does not make them real. Just because you can imagine something does not make that imaginary concept a real thing outside of your head.
      Yes, you are a brainless prat but you don't have to be. If you imagine monsters under your bed, it makes no difference to the universe around you what you imagine, so no monsters appear nor were there ever any monsters.
      Conceptualizing something does not magically give existence to it nor can you only conceptualize what is real.
      You can imagine nonsense that does not exist. How is that different from mathematics? Both are abstract imaginary things.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:16 am |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      Sorry my question completely stumped you.

      Infinity is just the name for adding objects forever. It is a word, not some brilliant concept that only God could come up with.

      Get real.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:21 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Modalitist

      There are numerous cosmologists and mathematicians who would disagree, most notably Max Tegmark. Anyway, this is a very theoretical area, and to speak in absolutes on any of these theories is the action of "a brainless prat".

      June 19, 2013 at 12:23 am |
    • tallulah13

      Numbers are simply a human construct that allow us to quantify the structure of the universe around use. The structures exist because certain quantities lend themselves to stability, and that which is stable tends to last longer then that which is chaotic. None of this is proof of god. It is proof that some constructs are success and the humans have a desire to define our universe.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:29 am |
    • maximo

      Dave
      "There are numerous cosmologists and mathematicians who would disagree, most notably Max Tegmark. Anyway, this is a very theoretical area, and to speak in absolutes on any of these theories is the action of "a brainless prat"."

      I amusingly had those very same thoughts.

      Do you know of any chat boards where dialogue happens, not just apologetics and insults?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:31 am |
    • Modalitist

      ""'ImsorryDave""', I don't know of any physicist who thinks imaginary things are real outside the imagination.
      Anyone who thinks imaginary things are real are called "schizophrenics" not "scientists".
      If you imagine something that scares you, do you think it was real and that's why it scared you?
      People like you should be living peacefully in the forest, with all the other nuts.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:33 am |
    • Observer

      maximo

      Do you know of any chat boards where people actually have the integrity to answer questions that are asked like 3 times?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:35 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      maximo

      No and to be honest, you'd be laughed off the boards of any site dedicated to theoretical physics.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:36 am |
    • maximo

      Modalistsist and observor,

      You think math laws do not exist.
      You think laws of physics do not exist.

      Accepting that just for the sake of discussion, then I ask, do you at least concede that there is something that causes matter and energy to act in a manner that can be elegantly and precisely described by the imaginary laws of physics and imaginary laws of mathematics?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:41 am |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Modalitist

      I just gave you the name of one prominent cosmologist and theoretical physicist who believes exactly that. Also, belief that mathematics is intrinsically linked to the universe doesn't necessarily equate to the belief that all things that can be conceptualized are real. Also, as you seem to like insulting people, you are a porch m.onkey.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:42 am |
    • Observer

      maximo

      Modalistsist and observor,

      "You think math laws do not exist.
      You think laws of physics do not exist."

      100% FALSE. I never said that. Is readlng comprehension a problem for you?

      You are the one supporting a Bible that claims that laws of science (especially physics) are OPTIONAL.

      Such laws do exist. My point is that it didn't take a god to "set them up". Adding another object to an existing object gives two objects. A pre-schooler can figure that out without understanding any math concepts.

      Stick with what I actually said instead of making things up. Maybe answer a question every once in a while, too. It would show integrity.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:49 am |
    • maximo

      If math laws exists only in our mind, and are not intrinsic to the universe, then did the fact that various civilizations imagine the same math laws just a chance coincidence?

      June 19, 2013 at 12:51 am |
    • Modalitist

      maximo, our mathematical laws are also imaginary. It does not signify anything that one imaginary thing can be used to describe another imaginary thing.
      Our concepts of physics and physical laws are imaginary constructs we have put together to describe what we see.
      What we call physical laws are imaginary and arbitrary descriptions in imaginary mathematical terms describing an aspect of the things we see in physics. The laws are not mathematical in the real universe. Physics, real physics and not our imagined descriptions of physics, act as they do, not as we imagine they do.

      In other words, the reality is what actually IS, not what we imagine it to be.
      You are arguing for a schizophrenic worldview because you cannot do logic very well. Okay. The forest is that way ->

      June 19, 2013 at 12:51 am |
    • maximo

      You are so very correct in that the laws of physics only describe what we see. The fact is that scientists do not know what is the cause behind Newton's second law for example. We can only describe it.

      However, is it a coincidence that random, mindless atoms, can be caused by something to act in a way that can be so elegantly described and predicted? Real or imagined mathematical laws are independent of real or imagined physical laws, yet the mathematical laws fit so nicely in describing the reality of the behavior of matter.

      Is it a coincidence that the fascinating number 2.72 is found in so many laws of physics? I'm not talking of fine tuning here. Just the mathematical and physical law interaction and why that is so.

      Is that proof for God? No. But its pretty darn cool. And maybe some day you will see the beauty in it if you do like the Doobie Brothers advise – "Oh,oh oh listen to the music" some of the time!

      June 19, 2013 at 1:17 am |
    • maximo

      And when listening to that music, I have hope that you might, with the full cognition of the sophistication of all of it, tie it to the beauty, and that it would then become for you a little nudge, not proof mind, you, but a little nudge. Thats how it starts for a lot of us!

      Have a good night!

      June 19, 2013 at 1:20 am |
    • Modalitist

      maximo, that stuff is neither elegant nor accurate.
      Yes, those things occur in an essentially random manner, yet are as precise as clockwork for all that and are not actually random. Nothing happens at random. It is not magic just because you don't understand it.
      I suggest you study logic and epistemology and then look at science with a fresh eye.

      June 19, 2013 at 1:26 am |
    • maximo

      moltiltist,

      "that stuff is neither elegant nor accurate."

      Then I suggest you take a college course in physics and calculus, differential equations.
      Or you could try the Teaching Company's Great Courses. They have courses in physics and calc that may throw some light your way.

      I find it quite elegant that the differential equations describing noise and vibration can be described, and quantified in a system of non-linear differential equations in a multibody dynamics system used to predict, assess, and even synthesize design of airplanes, automobiles, rocket engines, car engines, motorcycle tires and more. I do this daily.

      "Yes, those things occur in an essentially random manner, yet are as precise as clockwork for all that and are not actually random. "

      Which is it?

      "I suggest you study logic and epistemology"

      Do you mean the sort of logic you use in your paragraph above?

      Get in the game Molt.

      June 19, 2013 at 2:29 am |
    • Modalitist

      maximo, should you ever learn how to use and read English correctly, you might find it useful for when you get out of high school.
      In your case, I do not suggest taking any science courses as constant failure is likely to prove emotionally distressing.
      I know whereof I speak, and my English is just fine and my logic is more than adequate. There is nothing random about anything in physics, but it is "essentially random" for all plebian intents and purposes, as this is often too complicated for people like you to understand.
      Should someone better suited desire a conversation about quantum spin topology and emerging dynamics of quantum foam theory, I can hold my own quite well. You are clearly out of your depth with me but I don't hate you for it. Have a nice day.

      June 19, 2013 at 3:59 am |
    • S-3B Viking

      Modalitist,

      I appreciate your thoughts. Both Alan Watts and Raymond Smullyan (logician and mathematician) describe what you're writing about...how we, religiously, cling to our human instruments and descriptive tools and concepts as if they were, in and of themselves, the "truth."

      Smullyan, in his book _The Tao is Silent_ describes how there are categories of mathematicians...those who believe that numbers and such are the truth (in a Platonic sort of way) and those who understand that they are just human symbols attempting to comprehend what is there.

      Watts described it as expecting to find the lines of latt itude and longitude across the water as you sail the ocean...or mistaking the menu for the actual food.

      What amazes me is the religious fervor of those who find their scientific tools, measurements and concepts sacred.

      June 19, 2013 at 4:28 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Mathematics is the language of logic. Logic is conceptual. The rules of logic define what can and cannot exist in reality. Thus the rules of math allow us to model and make predictions about reality in an abstract fashion. The symbols and values we assign to numbers and mathematical operations are arbitrary. Take for example the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius and Centigrade scales of temperature.

      June 19, 2013 at 5:02 am |
    • Modalitist

      S-3B Viking, I am glad if my words mean anything to anyone but they are just words, all the same.
      Quantum gravity is one of my foci. I have amassed over half a dozen different modalities for quantum-foam dynamics that have a good potential for success, yet they are quite different from each other (modalities).
      I can also talk economics, but anyone who follows the Austrian or Chicago schools is likely to be an ignorant sort of whatsis.
      Not much fun there.
      Kind of like arguing with a puppet, really. All the same lies parroted exactly the same.
      Sonobuoys, right? You know that's a dangerous waste of manpower to fiddle with it that way? Sorry, I'm a terrible tease.

      June 19, 2013 at 5:14 am |
    • S-3B Viking

      Modalitist,

      I prefer Feynman to Hayek but understand very little of either...and I have great respect for those of you who can imagine your way through quantum foams and things like that...I simply don't have the brain for it. But it is fun to try and I consider those who try to explain it to us genuinely heroic.

      And yes, sonobuoys and waste go hand in hand!

      June 19, 2013 at 5:27 am |
    • Science

      Hey Maximo

      Physics play a role in everything we do..............without physics I would not be able to get in a helicopter and go flying.

      And like the myth it is all made by humans.

      No Adam and his bone.

      June 19, 2013 at 6:07 am |
    • Modalitist

      S-3B Viking, you shouldn't have so much respect for anyone.
      Thinking about physics, for me, is rather like having a favorite hobby that requires no equipment other than my imagination.

      June 19, 2013 at 6:11 am |
    • S-3B Viking

      I'm learning....was once an Evangelical Christian...so there is progress

      June 19, 2013 at 6:18 am |
    • Modalitist

      Viking, you do not need tons of math to envision things. And the brain is like a muscle that gets stronger the more you use it for something. Just thinking about astronomy doesn't require binoculars, but staring at the stars or a picture helps keep the mind focused.
      Gravity is such a simple-looking thing, yet it evades scientific resolution. Why? Because of preconceptions and that the mechanisms are probably counter-intuitive simply because they are so alien to our usual ways of thinking.
      Quantum foam is just an idea, a hypothetical explanation for the expansion of space-time.

      Just imagine some foam and imagine it foaming without stopping and now imagine it happening at the speed of light...
      ...
      ..and for gravity, imagine that the foam is slowed down in it's expansion by some unknown quality of "mass".

      There you have a bit of foam theory. The rate of the expansion is the rate at which we observe time to flow as well as the limit on the speed of light.

      ..now imagine, instead of foamy bubbles, foaming ball bearings, ball bearings appearing between each other at the speed of light, appearing only in empty spots perhaps, and that unknown aspect of "mass" that slows down the appearance of these ball bearings and causes the effect known as "gravity".

      All energy is dimensional energy is vector-velocity changing acceleration energy expressed by gaps in the foam or ball bearings, whichever helps you visualize the ebb and flow of this expanding quantum foam.

      Now remember that at the quantum scale, this foam is expanding at the speed of light and that the rate it expands is what we consider to be time itself, yet if it works this way, then there could be a sort of "hyper-dimensional" time or meta-dimensional time and all we know is how the foam moves and not what that other time might be.
      Maybe it's energy itself or an aspect of it.

      But quantum foam or something like it is indicated by the fact that our continuum expands, perhaps at a different rate or in a different way using wave functions instead of discrete bubbles or ball bearings, but the fact of its expansion is not disputed from our frame of reference.

      And it is still hypothetical, not some accepted fact or theory. When I do thought experiments I try to keep other phenomena in mind to see if it could match up with the model of foam I am using. It is merely an attempt to explain the expansion of space-time while our galaxy goes flying off at millions of miles an hour relative to an intergalactic frame of reference.

      In other words (I've drifted a bit here), I think there is good reason to believe that a great many measurements are skewed if our relative velocity has not been factored in, as well as the time-dilation effects of gravity and velocity, simply because a few million miles an hour is an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, giving rise to SR and GR effects.

      Even our measurements of the background microwave radiation are skewed in one direction by our vast speed, yet it is not very much noticed by anyone. Red and blue-shifting make sense with basic quantum foam hypotheses.
      Energy expressed as waves of the expansion rather than the foam itself can also give rise to interesting effects.
      Okay, done rambling. I've got to get on. Thanks for the kind words. Adios.

      June 19, 2013 at 6:52 am |
    • Modalitist

      Wait, I've got a few more minutes as it turns out. So..
      I should apologize for skimming over the foaming action itself.
      It is by far the hardest thing about foam to visualize – foam upon foam or bits perhaps moving past one another or waves – whatever actually works – but it is the hardest part to visualize as it quickly overwhelms in terms of vectors.
      So
      The solution is to reduce it to the smallest aspect, the smallest possible scale spatially as well as flow of possible time – to a stop, even.
      Now what have we got? One of something. And more are going to appear in some fashion.
      If there is more than one kind of time, then we can use whatever is convenient. This should be a casual thing as these are just thought experiments.

      To reiterate: One of something – just sitting there. What is it? Is it a bump in some ether-like fluid? A wormhole? A bit of something? A loop of vibrating dimensional string? And those are just a few possibilities.

      One of something and more will appear or what is there will expand in some other way perhaps.
      Move one iota forward through time...now what has happened? Vector expansion without necessarily including acceleration. Movement or popping into this place from somewhere else. Something is going on here.

      Let's jump back for a moment and consider just this one aspect: that our space-time continuum expands with the addition of space-time but not energy, suggesting energy is not increasing while expansion is continuing.

      Also, is there an outside source for this expansion, or is it an aspect of this continuum itself?
      If from outside, if there is a finite amount, it will run out and our continuum will no longer expand – instant phase-change.
      If everything is run from the clockwork expansion of space-time, then if it stops, so will everything else and what would happen to space, time, energy, matter, the three atomic forces (not four), and to the continuum itself?

      Okay, now back to the one thing. One grain of foam. One blip of space. Always expanding, never contracting.
      Gravity will never cause the universe to contract, in my opinion. Not if it's just an aspect of foam expansion.

      Now consider the Big Bang. We can confidently extrapolate a minimum hyper-radius that is above zero – no singularity is indicated, but the mechanics of the Big Bang are also open to conjecture, as there are a number of possibilities that could lead to the effects we can list.
      Beginning conditions would include, in no particular order:
      Total energy / acceleration / distortion that could have started at zero, gaining finite volume and stopping.
      Possible beginning radius – >0 – boundary event suggested, not confirmed. – Expansion from possible zero radius could be a separate process from the energy of accelerative distortion or included.
      More than one aspect of the continuum could have expanded, and at different rates, perhaps folding in upon themselves where fluxuations are present or what-have-you.
      All we need to come up with is something that equals what we see and can extrapolate. The math must work out okay.

      What is the continuum made of? Is it some strange dimensional emptiness that nontheless has some structure that enforces all of physics? What is the lowest common denominator for every aspect in physics? Space-time.
      What is the lowest common denominator for space-time expansion? Rate of expansion per unit volume.
      And the LCD of that? the Unit of Volume that is the smallest or the aspect that allows this property to exist as projected.

      Okay. If your brain is whirling around with all of this, welcome to the club.
      Some aspects of chemistry and the atomic forces are point-to-point vector effects expressed in wave form, which sort of suggests some point-oriented type of expansion – and breaks in the foam, then, are acceleration vectors.
      If you imagine a field of ball bearings, disturbances can have different speeds from the bearings themselves, so I am not writing anything in stone here. Foaming foam at the speed of light is too fast. Slow it down to super-slow and try to guess or visualize what happens. Okay, out of time again. Thanks for reading if you got this far or scrolled to the bottom. Bye

      June 19, 2013 at 7:51 am |
    • S-3B Viking

      Modalitist,

      I'll mull this over...thanks. Have a great day.

      June 19, 2013 at 8:13 am |
    • S-3B Viking

      Modalitist,

      Yes, my head is spinning...but it mostly does whenever I attempt a lay-level of understanding of QT. However, I am right to have respect for your mind because I do not have the tools to even begin to imagine how to perform a thought experiment as you describe. That is what I admire about the many scientific minds around the world that can imagine and calculate and hypothesize.

      And I applaud you for taking words and making it "easy" to visualize and consider. Polkinghorne, Wolf, Capra, Bohr and Feynman helped me to "grasp" QT to some extent. You, as well. Thanks.

      And I worry that we are limiting ourselves by having so few that undestand that linear thinking is, in itself, a great limitation.

      June 20, 2013 at 12:42 am |
  17. maximo

    ... you discount the fact biology/ physics/ mathematics and cosmology all point towards a single source of life at which point God or no god is a matter of faith, you discount the fact the Bible is the only holy book that gets creation right, you discount the fact we have empirical evidence that the power of God (real of illusionary) effects every walk of life, you discount the fact 98% of the worlds population believe existence is more than the physical, you discount prophecy that came true, you discount the fact the Bible reveals the true heart of the reader, you discount the fact the writing of Saul of Tarsus is accepted confirming the origin of Christian Church, you discount the fact materialism the foundation of naturalism was debunked with quantum mechanics, you discount the fact that pre big bang quantum gravitational phase is the equivalent to when God said "let it be and it was"..........................................etc

    and then

    June 18, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      You discount the scientific nonsense of the Bible claiming the earth stopped still for a day.

      You discount the mathematics showing that the starting point for the expanding universe must have been MILLIONS of years ago.

      Funniest of all. you discount loads of science, biology and physics by believing in the science fiction of Noah's ark.

      Don't try to mix science, math, physics, etc. with anything in the Bible.

      June 18, 2013 at 10:21 pm |
    • Athy

      Maximo, you are a textbook case of deluded ignorance. Can you honestly distinguish reality from fantasy?

      June 18, 2013 at 10:37 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "you discount the fact biology/ physics/ mathematics and cosmology all point towards a single source of life"

      No, they don't.

      "you discount the fact the Bible is the only holy book that gets creation right"

      Nonsense. You have no evidence that anything the bible says about creation is true.

      , "you discount the fact we have empirical evidence that the power of God (real of illusionary) effects every walk of life,"

      It's AFFECTS, stupid git, and you have no evidence of any such thing. None.

      "you discount the fact 98% of the worlds population believe existence is more than the physical,"

      That doesn't mean there's a god, a heaven, a hell, or that there was a christ.

      "you discount prophecy that came true"

      What "prophecy" do you think came true and why would you imagine that simply because something was predicted and then occurred it makes the entire book factual?

      , "you discount the fact the Bible reveals the true heart of the reader"

      No evidence that's true at all.

      , you discount the fact the writing of Saul of Tarsus is accepted confirming the origin of Christian Church, you discount the fact materialism the foundation of naturalism was debunked with quantum mechanics, you discount the fact that pre big bang quantum gravitational phase is the equivalent to when God said "let it be and it was"..........................................etc

      Blah, blah, blah.

      It's discounted because it's simply not supported by evidence. Really, do you think you said something here?

      June 18, 2013 at 10:43 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      You two are extremities on opposing ends of the spectrum. I for one know there is truth in life. That's why I choose to believe in god but not religion. One of the many things religion and atheism have in common is they both hide lies inside truth(yes atheists you too). It's time for people in this country to stop being so extreme and use common sense.

      June 18, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Shiz, What atheist lies?

      June 18, 2013 at 10:47 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      It's another Saul who holds the most significance to the Judeo-Christian myth. Prior to the unification of Israel, the Jews worshipped numerous gods. In order to unify his people, Saul declared Yahweh the one true god of Israel (I'm not certain but I believe that the worship of other gods was outlawed), thus monotheising (if such a word exists) Judaism. If these events actually occurred, they are as significant to the expansion of current Judeo-Christian myths as the First Council of Nicaea was.

      June 18, 2013 at 10:51 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      How about "atheists don't kill people". Or "we're so much more intelligent and superior than people that believe in God". ALL LIES

      June 18, 2013 at 10:55 pm |
    • maximo

      real tom,
      The genesis accounts of creation support old earth creation.
      Someone will say it says 7 days. But scholars that study the original Greek translation (Septuagint, which translated from a Hebrew version older than any other Hebrew version) tell us that one day was not to mean a 24 hour period. If you want more on this, there is an interesting podcast from the dean emeritus of a very well respected, ancient, traditional Orthodox Christian seminary (no its not a bait and switch to try to proselitize!) In addition to that, the early Christian Fathers very clearly interpreted the Bible account of creation as not necessarily meaning seven 24 hour periods.

      June 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      It's unusual for a Christian to claim that God wasn't nearly as omnipotent as Christians like to claim and it took him likely far longer. Well done.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:01 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      shiz, I know atheists have killed people. The point that typically comes up here is that the religious equate atheism with communism and say that because ruthless leaders like Stalin killed then atheists kill. They do that in an attempt to counter all of the wars and oppression caused by religion over the centuries. That fails for several reasons: atheism is not communism; Stalin etc. killed for power not religious belief (and btw many deaths under Stalin were starvation caused by poor agricultural policy tied to a rigid system of distribution).

      June 18, 2013 at 11:01 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      BIG SHIZ

      I haven't met any atheist who would make the first statement and on average, atheists are more intelligent than believers (although I've met some highly intelligent believers and some retarded atheists in my time).

      June 18, 2013 at 11:02 pm |
    • maximo

      Observer,
      Ancient, Orthodox Christianity (the most conservative form of Chistianity and the farthest one can be from liberal Christianity) would agree with you that the Bible is not to be used as a science book or a physics book. The Bible is taken as the accounts of God's revelation to man and is considered God's story of man and the history of the saving acts of God. Though we believe it to be divinely inspired, its written by humans and thus has language and constructs used by man at the time a particular book, poetry, psalm, history, etc. was written.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:04 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      What about the Chinese? They kill and persecute religion and religious in the name of atheism to this day.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
    • maximo

      Fundamentalist Christians will say that this is a capitulation to modern day science. Its not. Its in the ancient writings of the church Fathers.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:06 pm |
    • The real Tom

      BIG SHIZ says: "How about "atheists don't kill people". Or "we're so much more intelligent and superior than people that believe in God". ALL LIES"

      You're lying when you claim that all atheists say any such thing.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      That's about the tenth its/it's fudge up tonight. COME ON PEOPLE, LET'S UP OUR GAME.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      shiz, I don't see what is intelligent about living a life governed by superstition; surely even the religious must find it odd that people have "lucky" numbers, "lucky" underwear, etc. Religion is formalized superstition – our ancestors interpreted the randomness and uncertainty inherent in life to be attributed to the whims of a god: thunder meant it was angry; an eclipse was a sign, etc. We know that is not true – why cling to the superstition?

      June 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm |
    • Observer

      maximo,

      Please pass your wisdom on to HeavenSent and faith..

      June 18, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "What about the Chinese? They kill and persecute religion and religious in the name of atheism to this day."

      Cite your source for this claim.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:08 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      BIG SHIZ

      No, China does those things as religious power undermines the authority of the state. Christ you must be a troll or mentally deranged.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:09 pm |
    • The real Tom

      'The genesis accounts of creation support old earth creation"

      So? What of it? That doesn't mean diddly. What part of "Just because the bible contains some factual information and truth does not mean the entire book is factual and that all it claims is true" do you not understand?

      June 18, 2013 at 11:10 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      shiz
      "What about the Chinese? They kill and persecute religion and religious in the name of atheism to this day."

      I think you're equating atheism with communism. China is a big growing market for the christians so any persecution there can't be too bad.

      I'm beginning to doubt your statement of not being religious – you seem to be making the christian arguments (except the one about persecution in the USA).

      June 18, 2013 at 11:12 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      I never said all atheists think that. But I have heard a lot of them say that sh it though.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      Im not arguing, im pointng out yall are just as bad and stupid as the religious are. Bi tchs

      June 18, 2013 at 11:17 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      I'd bet my left nut that you have never heard an atheist say that atheists don't kill people.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:18 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Big Shiz, you said that atheists lie. When asked what lies atheists tell, you made a blanket statement about them that wasn't accurate and now you're attempting to weasel out of it.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:19 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      Stupid? I could write an encyclopedia on the grammar, punctuation and semantic errors in your posts.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:19 pm |
    • maximo

      Real Tom,
      Go back thru the thread!
      Never mind, here, allow me to put our posts together for you.

      Maximo quoting a prior post:
      "you discount the fact the Bible is the only holy book that gets creation right"

      The Real Tom:
      "Nonsense. You have no evidence that anything the bible says about creation is true"

      maximo:
      'The genesis accounts of creation support old earth creation"

      The Real Tom:
      So? What of it? That doesn't mean diddly.

      I think you are reading too many different posts and forgot the entirety of the thread.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:21 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      shiz, You made unsubstantiated claims about what atheists say and do, and you are arguing against the pushback.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:21 pm |
    • BIG SHIZ

      Im sorry bi tch suck my nuts. Did I spell that right? And iv head science say both things,observer too.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:24 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      What a porch m.onkey.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:25 pm |
    • The real Tom

      I'm not confused, maxipad. You are, though. You seem to think that simply because one can interpret some of what the bible says as being consistent with what science tells us, that means that the whole of the bible is factual and that everything in it is true or that your interpretation of what it does say is valid.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:26 pm |
    • I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that

      maximo

      Just because there's a King's Cross in London doesn't mean there are also witches and wizards zooming around on broomsticks.

      June 18, 2013 at 11:29 pm |
    • maximo

      real tom, read it again, didn't say or imply waht you said, was just addressing your comment

      June 18, 2013 at 11:35 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Maximo, you completely discount reality.

      June 19, 2013 at 12:32 am |
    • redzoa

      "you discount the fact the Bible is the only holy book that gets creation right"

      Ah, nope . . .

      Genesis:
      1) Sun created after Earth (science = Earth significantly younger than Sun
      2) Grass, Land Plants, Trees created before Sun (science = photosynthetic terrestrial vegetation required Sun first)
      3) First life = Land Plants (science = marine microbes)
      4) Birds before land animals (science = birds evolved from dinosaurs)
      5) Whales before land animals (science = evolved from terrestrial mammals)
      6) Fruit Trees = created before Fish (science = Fruit Trees evolved after marine vertebrates)
      7) All organisms = initially vegetarian until the "fall" (science = distinct lineages of herbivores, carnivores and omnivores)
      Etc, etc . . .

      June 19, 2013 at 12:38 am |
  18. BIG SHIZ

    Picture a bunch of wild Hebrews dancing on chariots and smoking fat one's(E40). To bad Abrahams children lost thier ways(all three of them).

    June 18, 2013 at 10:07 pm |
  19. Observer

    HeavenSent

    "Observer proving your ignorance does not negate that behemoths ruled the planet in the first earth age and Noah lived in our earth age (the 2nd earth age). Two separate earth ages. You need to ketchup"

    Speaking of proving ignorance, you spit out quotes from the Bible all the time. so let's hear your quote about MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years passing between Adam and Eve and Noah..

    June 18, 2013 at 8:53 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Observer wrote on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 at 8:53 pm writing, "Speaking of proving ignorance, you spit out quotes from the Bible all the time. so let's hear your quote about MILLIONS and MILLIONS of years passing between Adam and Eve and Noah.

      2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

      June 18, 2013 at 9:30 pm |
    • Observer

      lionlylamb,

      Wow! So Jonah lived inside of a whale for 3,000 YEARS.

      A ridiculous story gets MUCH worse.

      June 18, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Unobservable,

      I am at a loss, so far thee well and in observance I bid thee ado. May your conscience lay bare and your hands open wide. Until the world departs from its perilous journey, we will savor in its' soupiness ever continuations. Love the ugliness in its' many forms and hate will soon depart,

      June 18, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Observer, you can read about the destruction of the 1st earth age in the 2nd book of Peter 3:6. The beginning of this 2nd earth age has yet to be discovered in Jesus' truth ... meaning, we have yet to decipher what He's told us in scriptures. I'm sure He wrote His truth , but, we acquire His virtue of patience for Jesus to reveal what he's written on the time span between when He destroyed the 1st earth age and when He created this 2nd earth age (the EA we currently live). That's why He told us ... But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8. Amen.

      Besides Observer, you know that Science told us the earth is billions of years old, and Jesus' letter He wrote ALL (the Bible) told us that Adam was formed in the Garden of Eden over 6000 + years ago (see the book of Genesis). This 2nd earth age is over 14,000 years ago, coinciding with what geology has told us that is the time the Ice Age ended and the glacial ice receded to allow the earth to warm. True science and the Bible have always been in perfect harmony. Always were, always will be.

      Good night.

      June 18, 2013 at 9:56 pm |
    • Observer

      lionlylamb,

      As I have stated many times, it's all pick-and-choose HYPOCRISY.

      You PICK-AND-CHOOSE that a "day" in the Bible is a THOUSAND YEARS, but a "day" elsewhere in the Bible is 24-hours.

      You can't have it BOTH ways and have any credibility at all.

      Try again. How long was Jonah in the whale?

      June 18, 2013 at 10:01 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Love the ugliness in its' many forms and hate will soon depart,

      June 18, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Observer, focus on the part of His scripture that says "that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".

      June 18, 2013 at 10:13 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      HS, I suspect that the 1000 years to a day comparison was more about how idyllic life is with a god. But if you are going to use it to say that the creation myth now covers 7000 years, then how does it impact the timelines in the Noah, Jonah, Methuselah, etc. stories. And was Jesus in the tomb for 3000 years?

      June 18, 2013 at 10:31 pm |
    • Observer

      HeavenSent

      "that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day".

      So apparently God isn't as omnipotent as claimed. Now we find out it took 7 THOUSAND YEARS for God to create the Universe.

      June 18, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      In Santa we trust, what I'm saying is this earth age we live in now (2nd EA) is about 14,004 YEARS OLD, which makes it about 2 weeks in Jesus' time, since He left us.

      June 19, 2013 at 11:31 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Observer, you posted "HeavenSent, "that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

      So apparently God isn't as omnipotent as claimed. Now we find out it took 7 THOUSAND YEARS for God to create the Universe."

      Answer: I don't question His masterpiece. I'm just in awe of His majesty. By the way Observer, you created what? Oh, that's right. Nothing.

      June 20, 2013 at 6:52 pm |
  20. faith

    nothing minus nothin plus nothin

    June 18, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Paths least traveled will grow over leaving the most traveled path worthy of being traversed.

      June 18, 2013 at 9:20 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Well, goshers, LL, that was whole sentence absolutely devoid of meaning.

      June 18, 2013 at 10:37 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
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.