home
RSS
Is the Internet killing religion?
A new study suggests that the Internet may play a role in the demise of organized religion.
April 9th, 2014
12:17 PM ET

Is the Internet killing religion?

By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

(CNN) We can blame the Internet for plenty: the proliferation of porn, our obsession with cat videos, the alleged rise of teen trends like - brace yourself - eyeball licking.

But is it also a culprit in helping us lose our religion? A new study suggests it might be.

Allen Downey, a computer scientist at Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts, set out to understand the national uptick in those who claim no religious affiliation. These are the “nones,” which the Pew Research Center considers the fastest-growing “religious” group in America.

Since 1985, Downey says, the number of first-year college students who say they're religiously unaffiliated has grown from 8% to 25%, according to the CIRP Freshman Survey.

And, he adds, stats from the General Social Survey, which has been tracking American opinions and social change since 1972, show unaffiliated Americans in the general population ballooned from 8% to 18% between 1990 and 2010.

These trends jibe with what the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project reported in 2012. It said one in five American adults, and a third of those under 30, are unaffiliated.

Downey says he stepped into the ongoing debate about the rise of the "nones" not because he has a vested interest one way or the other, but because the topic fascinates him. He says it’s good fodder for study and appeals to students who are learning to crunch real data.

In his paper “Religious affiliation, education and Internet use,” which published in March on arXiv – an electronic collection of scientific papers – Downey analyzed data from GSS and discovered a correlation between increased Internet use and religious disaffiliation.

Internet use among adults was essentially at zero in 1990; 20 years later, it jumped to 80%, he said. In that same two-decade period, we saw a 25 million-person spike in those who are religiously unaffiliated.

People who use the Internet a few hours a week, GSS numbers showed Downey, were less likely to have a religious affiliation by about 2%. Those online more than seven hours a week were even more likely – an additional 3% more likely – to disaffiliate, he said.

Now, Downey is the first to point out that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.

But he was able to control for other factors including education, religious upbringing, rural/urban environments and income, to find a link that allowed him to “conclude, tentatively, that Internet use causes disaffiliation,” he said.

“But a reasonable person could disagree.”

The Internet, he posited, opens up new ways of thinking to those living in homogeneous environments. It also allows those with doubts to find like-minded individuals around the world.

He believes decreases in religious upbringing have had the largest effect, accounting for 25% of reduced affiliation; college education covers about 5% and Internet use may account for another 20%.

That leaves 50% which he attributes to “generational replacement,” meaning those born more recently are less likely to be religiously affiliated – though he doesn’t attempt to explain why that is.

The Pew Research Center has offered its own theories.

One explanation Pew gives is that our nation is experiencing political backlash – "that young adults, in particular, have turned away from organized religion because they perceive it as deeply entangled with conservative politics and do not want to have any association with it."

More specifically, Pew explains, this brand of religion and politics is out of step with young adult views on same-sex rights and abortion.

Postponement of marriage and parenthood, broader social disengagement and general secularization of society may also play a part, according to Pew.

But to be religiously unaffiliated doesn’t require a lack of faith or spirituality, researchers say.

Yes, the "nones" group includes those who might call themselves atheists or agnostics. But it also accounts for many – 46 million people – who don't belong to a particular group but are, in some way, religious or spiritual, according to Pew.

This is all part of the changing face of society and faith, and where the Internet fits in is just part of a complicated puzzle.

The evolving landscape includes plenty of people who go online in search of spiritual and religious sustenance, said Cheryl Casey, who delved into the issue for her 2006 dissertation.

Casey, now a professor of media, society and ethics at Champlain College in Vermont, wrote about the “revirtualization of religious ritual in cyberspace” and the morphing relationship between technology and religion.

That Downey would find a correlation, that the Internet is increasing disaffiliation, makes perfect sense to her.

"The institutional control over the conversation is lifted, so it's not just a matter of more churches to choose from but more ways to have that conversation and more people to have that conversation with," she said Wednesday.

People move away from formal affiliation and toward what she calls "grass-roots religious exploration," where "the nature of the medium allows for those conversations to grow organically."

Innovations have long played a part in influencing religion, she said, and will continue to.

Something she wrote back in 2006 said it best.

“When a new technology, such as the printing press or the Internet, unleashes massive cultural change, the challenge to religion is immense. Cultural developments change how God, or the ultimate, is thought of and spoken about,” she wrote.

“The dynamics of this transformation, however, await continued investigation.”

- CNN Writer/Producer

Filed under: Internet • Technology

soundoff (1,632 Responses)
  1. Dyslexic doG

    beep ... beep ... beep ... beep ... beep ... beep ... beep ... beep ... BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

    OH NO!!! Religion is flatlining!

    RIP religion. You were very, very old and what you said made no sense any more. It was time to go.

    April 10, 2014 at 9:41 am |
  2. observer

    Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

    (Deut. 25:11-12) “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.”

    Is this a moral that you agree with?

    April 10, 2014 at 9:13 am |
    • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

      I guess Moses was nearly as meek and humble as Jesus himself, and was very patient with the sinners. I guess that only the stubborn (persistent) sinners were cruelly punished, and the other ones (they who just had stumbled) got an opportunity to repent, to refer to the Lord's future sacrifice, and receiving forgiveness.

      April 10, 2014 at 9:30 am |
      • observer

        Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

        Please answer the question.

        April 10, 2014 at 9:32 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        dodge, dodge, slide, pout, change the subject ...

        April 10, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • observer

          Yes. Pretend I asked a completely different question and did not ask for his moral value.

          Why do so many Christians claim they have ALL the answers, but refuse questions?

          April 10, 2014 at 9:40 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          This is a very old political tactic, don't answer the question you were asked, answer the question you wish you were asked...

          April 10, 2014 at 11:54 am |
      • Doris

        RB: "I guess Moses was ..."

        That's a lot of guessing..

        April 10, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • doobzz

          About a guy for whom there is no evidence of existence.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:43 am |
      • iamyourgod2014

        Hi Rainer Bo-Baimer, the day you have finally waited for is here.....ITS ME GOD! I am so glad you agree with me, what is all this nonsense about me being patient and forgiving...pfft. Does anyone not read the good book anymore? So glad you and I are on the same boat (That's Noah's fav, joke, go figure)!! By the way, what should I get the Jesus for Easter this year, he is so hard to please.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
  3. ausphor

    tf01
    On Christianity doesn't it disturb you that Pope Urban II, the crusades, and Pope Gregory IX, the Inquisition; why are they any different than how Hitler comprehended morality?
    Let me guess your answer those guys were not "true" Christians, well guess what Hitler who was baptised and even sang in a church choir was not a "true" atheist. I am resisting the urge to use an ad hominem, but you can get my drift.

    April 10, 2014 at 8:26 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Well, you can call it a "no true scottsman" argument if you want, but that only works if there is no standard against which to judge. In this case, there is. Catholicism doesn't follow the dictates of scripture.

      They add tradition as being equal validity along with the Bible, even though God teaches the inspiration of scripture alone, the inerrancy of scripture alone, the infallibility of scripture alone, the authority of scripture alone, the perspecuity of scripture alone, the sufficiency of scripture alone, the immutability of scripture alone, the invincibility of scripture alone, and the finality of scripture alone.

      Through the error of the authority of tradition, they have created damnable heresies such as justification by works + faith, idol worship through Mary and the "saints," they conduct a horrific exaltation of Mary above Christ, they conduct a twisted sacrament by which Jesus is sacrificed again and again, it offers false forgiveness through the confessional, motivated by money, it has invented purgatory where through indulgences, one may obtain forgiveness to lessen their stay in it, they engage in prayers for the dead, and participates in the perversion of forced celibacy.

      Catholicism is not a Christian faith according to the Bible. It is rather an amalgamation of church, government, and Greek mythology.

      April 10, 2014 at 8:41 am |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        You seem to pass over the fact that if the Catholics did not keep the scam up and running for 1500 years, then got too greedy, which caused the reformation, your lot would not be around now. You may look down your nose at them now,
        but you owe everything to them. BTW next time someone points out that there are 2.1 billion Christians on earth I hope you will correct them. Now if you would please get on your rant about first cause and casual chain, comic relief is always appreciated.

        April 10, 2014 at 8:54 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          You seem to pass over the fact that if the Catholics did not keep the scam up and running for 1500 years, then got too greedy, which caused the reformation, your lot would not be around now."
          --------------–
          You know what, you're right. If the council of Nicea in 325AD had never occurred, we would all be orthodox in our Bible understanding.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:07 am |
        • Rynomite

          Huh. If the council of Nicea hadn't happened, its possible there would have been multiple Christian churches and only half of them would have believed Jebus to be divine...

          April 10, 2014 at 10:24 am |
      • igaftr

        'God teaches the inspiration of scripture alone, the inerrancy of scripture alone, the infallibility of scripture alone, the authority of scripture alone, the perspecuity of scripture alone, the sufficiency of scripture alone, the immutability of scripture alone, the invincibility of scripture alone, and the finality of scripture alone."

        I do not see where god teaches anything of the sort. I see where MEN say god said this and that, but you are claiming the book says it is the authority, the book says the book is all you need, the book says it is always right, and all because the book says so. Absurd.

        April 10, 2014 at 8:54 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "I see where MEN say god said this and that, but you are claiming the book says it is the authority, the book says the book is all you need, the book says it is always right, and all because the book says so. Absurd."
          -------------–
          How do you know how to spell "Sphygmomanometer?" You look it up in the dictionary. How do you know the dictionary is right? Because the dictionary says so. But the dictionary was written by MEN, and something that was written by men CANT be right!

          April 10, 2014 at 9:13 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          A dictionary helps to DEFINE words.

          The Bible supposedly was a reporting of divine-inspired FACTS.

          See the difference?

          April 10, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          The dictionary is a reference source. Your bible is completely unverifed as to the wild claims of deities and magic. Thanks once again for showing how you cannot think logically.

          Hey look how that orange compares to that apple. Isn't that marvelous.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "The dictionary is a reference source"
          -----------–
          EXACTLY! Now you're thinking!
          The dictionary is based on facts. Facts that help determine how to spell words for instance (like phonics), and shows their given meaning, all based on authoritative sources. In a similar way, the Bible relates historical facts, but it also teaches morality, and theology proper, all based on authoritative sources, like the words of Jesus, and the Apostles and prophets.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo

          "the Bible relates historical facts, but it also teaches morality"

          Yes and that's the problem. Obviously here, the "morality" it spreads here is MINDLESS, BARBARIC and DISCRIMINATORY towards women.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Well – the Bible teaches allegorical, apocryphal, mythologized and sometimes outright incorrect History... but I suppose that's technically correct. It certainly gives a feel for the cultural mores of the people for whom it was written in much the same way as Beowulf does for Anglo-Saxon society or Dostoyevsky does for 19th century Russia...

          April 10, 2014 at 9:46 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Well – the Bible teaches allegorical, apocryphal, mythologized and sometimes outright incorrect History... "
          ---------------
          It certainly may portray history through means that you disagree with, but I fail to see where it teaches incorrect history.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          " all based on authoritative sources, like the words of Jesus, and the Apostles and prophets"

          You mean all allegedly based on ....You have no idea if Jesus said anything along those lines.
          The "morality" you speak of comes from humanity, and was then written into your bible.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          " but I fail to see where it teaches incorrect history."
          Yes you do, you certainly do. Science has PROVEN Noah's myth never happened, for one example.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          igaftr,
          You just made me think of Buddy Davis....

          [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-H1gC7i4Q0&w=640&h=390]

          April 10, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          Genesis is hardly a book to be taken as literal history and even the New Testament has some glaring inconsistencies.
          For example, the story goes that Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem in order to be "taxed and counted", but we know that the Roman Empire employed roving assessors for such tasks.
          There is no situation in which they would have forced all of the itinerant Jews to travel back to the land of their ancestors (going back nearly 1,0000 years in Joseph's case) carrying all of their worldly possessions. It's simply not practical.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Sorry – one thousand, not ten thousand years.

          I seem to have left my typing fingers at home today.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:36 am |
      • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

        Which denomination do you belong to, if I allowed to ask?

        April 10, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • ausphor

          Helmut
          If you are asking me I am a Deist and would trend towards Buddhism of any of the man made religions/belief systems.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:12 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I attend a Baptist church.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • rogerthat2014

          Why are you Baptist?

          April 10, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Why are you Baptist?"
          -----------
          I searched for a church where the Bible was taught as the single source of authority, and it is obeyed. I am not hung up on sectariansims or denominationism, this just happened to be the one that was right.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo

          "I searched for a church where the Bible was taught as the single source of authority, and it is obeyed."

          When it comes to gays, does your church OBEY discrimination based on negative verses or does it OBEY the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule?

          April 10, 2014 at 9:58 am |
        • Doris

          Of course there are as many shades of Baptist as any other denomination, with the spectrum running from gay friendly to, well, Westboro, for instance.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "When it comes to gays, does your church OBEY discrimination based on negative verses or does it OBEY the MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule?"
          -------------
          Why are you so hung up on gays? Our church teaches repentance from all sins whether it is the sin of unbelief (atheism), the sin of adultery, divorce, or the sin of lying.

          Yes, we love all people, and the most loving thing you can do is not to "accept them as they are" but to show them the sin in their lives that will keep them from salvation. Only by repentance will God grant salvation.

          If we "accept people as they are" and never demand repentance, then we would be like the doctor who sees disease in a patient that will surely kill him, and tell him that he's fine and doesn't need to do anything with his life.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          How can gays get set free from their sin?

          It is enough when they repent, and accept the gospel of Jesus as true?

          There must be a mean which connects them with the releasing power of Jesus death and resurrection, the releasing power of Jesus which they cannot grasp with their human reason.

          This is sacramental baptism according to Romans 6 where we die and resurrect together with Jesus. We die for the sin, and enter Christ. Dead for the sin, and in Christ we are able to overcome the lust of our body, and to love God and our neighbour.

          If we daily refer to our relief through the triune God, we will certainly come through at Judgement Day.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • Doris

          I don't think can stay licensed to practice medicine in many places and still bleed people like they did hundreds of years ago think it will cure a myriad of things. That's the difference between medicine and religion as the Dog might say.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:14 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo

          "Yes, we love all people, and the most loving thing you can do is not to "accept them as they are" but to show them the sin in their lives that will keep them from salvation."

          Jesus said that women who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. How many of your family or friends that are ADULTERERS according to Jesus have you told to DIVORCE again and repent?

          Number please.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "I don't think can stay licensed to practice medicine in many places and still bleed people like they did hundreds of years ago think it will cure a myriad of things. That's the difference between medicine and religion as the Dog might say."
          ---------------
          But you're making the assumption that JUST because something is antiquated, that it's no good anymore. Mozart's music is antiquated, but it is some of the most beautiful music ever written. Besides, even if a TRUE cure is old, the fact that it still works gives credence to its validity, and the Bible is the only book that specifically deals with my sickness, my sinfulness, and is able to show me the way to be reconciled to a holy God.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:19 am |
        • Doris

          lol. I don't think we control our missile defense system with classical music. I don't think air traffic control is dependent on Bach or Buxtehude.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Jesus said that women who divorce and remarry are committing adultery. How many of your family or friends that are ADULTERERS according to Jesus have you told to DIVORCE again and repent?"
          ----------------
          First, there are allowances to divorce: 1) if there is se.xual immorality, and 2) if an ubelieving spouse leaves. Next, are you saying that to repent of one sin, you are required to commit another sin? That's not the way repentance works. Most likely what needs to happen in the case where two people get divorced because somebody burned the toast is that they need to get saved in the first place.

          And you asked for a number in my family that met your criteria – none. Just because a situation may be commonplace to some, does not mean that it is automatically commonplace to all.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

          God watched EVERY child, baby, and fetus on the planet torturously drown, so why does he get so squirrelly when he peeps in the bedroom windows of consenting adults having s3x and finding out that they are the same gender?

          April 10, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          Do you mean the babies of Catholic nuns who were drowned, or buried in the basement of the monastery?

          If God would descend from heaven, always when we commit a sin in order to prevent us from sinning, we would not be free human beings but puppets. We would be deprived of human dignity. God allows us to sin for a while – he waits patiently that we may repent, believe and get baptized. Of course, if we never convert, we will get judged at Judgement Day when the time of patience or grace is over.

          Male gays waste their spe-rm. Better they would make children together with a wife, and use well that highly valuable substance.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:39 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          "Do you mean the babies of Catholic nuns who were drowned, or buried in the basement of the monastery?"

          No, I'm talking about God's killing spree where he wiped out EVERY child, baby, fetus, and human embryo on the face of the planet by torturously drowning them.

          "Male gays waste their spe-rm."

          Hetero men don't waste spe-rm, right? All of it is used for pregnancy, right?

          April 10, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          Basically God has the right to let die everybody because he is the creator. He would not have to justify that.

          Besides, yet an infant or even embryo can turn apostate (similar yet an infant can believe). I believe that all infants and embryos which were killed by the Flood had turned apostate. Hard to grasp for the human reason, I know.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:50 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          So a 2-week old embryo can think things over and decide to believe in God. You are a riot!!

          What about an answer: Do hetero men ever "waste spe-rm"?

          April 10, 2014 at 10:57 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          Of course, it is a marvel when yet an infant is able to believe. Marvels would not be marvels, if we could explain them by logical thinking.

          I see no reason to doubt that the Creator can increase the mental abilities of an individual within the twinkling of an eye. At Pentecost the disciples were suddenly able to talk in foreign languages. It was the marvel of Pentecost. Most of the disciples were ordinary people having not undergone any higher education – it was a real marvel.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

          So a 2-week old fetus without a developed brain can rationally process thoughts and decided whether to believe in God or not. It appears that everything you know about science came from a 2,000-year-old book that says the sun revolves around the earth.

          Still COMPLETELY STUMPED about whether hetero guys waste any sp-erm? Ask your Christian male buddies if you are still CLUELESS.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:25 am |
      • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

        Theo Phileo, I agree with you concerning your critique of the RCC.

        Let my only mention the following:

        Brace yourself, but the infant baptism of the RCC is valid, despite all her capital errors.

        Reason: Every sacramental baptism is a work of God (!!!), and only celebrated by the church. God is the invisible baptist. The validity of baptism doesn't depend on the condition of the church like the content of a parcel from the condition of the postman.

        Of course, baptism is abused by the RCC because they baptize infants of non-pious people where faith of the infant cannot be assumed. The Early Church baptized only infants of pious believers.

        I was baptized by a Catholic priest. Many years I could not believe that that should be valid, but Luther and Bonhoeffer "enlightened" me. I refer now to my infant baptism, and would designate myself as a Lutheran or Protestant. Of course, as a serious Christian I cannot remain in the RCC with all her bad mistakes.

        April 10, 2014 at 9:20 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          I don't mean to jump completely off topic with a discussion on the validity of paedobaptism, but I will ask one question... Where in scripture do we ever see anyone other than a professing believer getting Baptised?

          April 10, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          Could you prove that infants are not able to believe?

          Ain't I am right that bringing about faith is always a work of the Holy Spirit, and that we cannot "produce" faith by ourselves. If that is true, then infants would even easier believe because they lack the ability to scrutinize like adults.

          John the baptist converted in the womb of his mother Elisabeth when she encountered Mary who carried Jesus (that is from the gospel of Luke). John received the Holy Spirit within the womb of his mother.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:12 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

          What was your answer to my question which you misread before?

          April 10, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          Sorry, I did not miss your point, you err. I have "perfectly" answered your question. It is only that you don't grasp it. Don't get me wrong!

          April 10, 2014 at 10:24 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Could you prove that infants are not able to believe?"
          ----------–
          Interesting question. Well, if an infant can make a profession of faith, admitting they are sinners who can do nothing to save themselves from the wrath of God who would be perfectly justified in killing him on the day of his conception because of his sinful nature inherited through his legal representative, Adam, and that until he comes to Christ, he can do nothing but sin, and throw himself fully into the grace and mercies of Jesus Christ who is alone able to make him right with God, then yeah, he can be Baptised.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          And therefore we there should not be any rebaptism. Rebatizing churches are excluded from the Christian Church because the desecrate the sacrament of baptism.

          It is neither an act of obedience, nor a public confession of faith, but God himself bestows upon us eternal blessing, a blessing making us able to live as true Christians accompanied by the Angel of the Lord.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          "I have "perfectly" answered your question."

          What was it? Did you AGREE that it's a good moral to CUT OFF the hand of a wife who is defending her husband and grabs the assailant's genitals to do it? Yes or no?

          April 10, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          I agree with God's view. What else should I do?

          But don't forget his patience, and that he punishes only persistant sinners (multi-repeater).

          He is slow to apply wrath.

          He would rather see that the sinner repents, than punishing him. He is not keen on punishing, not all all.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Rebatizing churches are excluded from the Christian Church because the desecrate the sacrament of baptism."
          ----------
          What scripture reference are you using to justify this?

          Actually, these battles have already been fought over in the 15th century...

          The point is that scripture shows only a believer's baptism, and it is not the act of immersion into water that saves (baptism), but an immersion into Christ that saves (baptism), and that occurs at belief, not dunking into water.

          1 Peter 3:21 – Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

          John 3:5 – Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

          Jesus here was figuratively referring to the need for cleansing, not from literal water – obviously, literal water has no ability to spiritually cleanse. He refers to the spiritual washing or purification of the soul accomplished by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation. Jesus meant a believer is purified in spirit, and this becomes evident through a purified life of repentance. This is backed up by the following scriptures:

          Ezekiel 36:25-27 – Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

          Ephesians 5:26 – so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word

          T.itus 3:5 – He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit…

          See also: Numbers 19:17-19, Psalm 51:9-10, Isaiah 32:15, Isaiah 44:3-5, Isaiah 55:1-3, Jeremiah 2:13, Joel 2:28-29

          April 10, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          Let us pray that God leads us well, and reveals the truth towards us.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          "that occurs at belief, not dunking into water." Unquote.

          May God open your eyes that you may realize that you (falsely) imply something here (I guess you are honest). According to Romans 6 it takes place during the "dunking" as you call it.

          Before we have received the Spirit our faith can only be a kind of "accepting something as true", but the saving faith is the faith which really sets us free, and makes us able to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, or to adore God in the Spirit and in the Truth. Only trough sacral power we can overcome the lust of our body.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

          If you are attacked and your wife tries to save your life by grabbing the assailant's genitals, you think it's right to PUNISH her by cutting her hand off.

          Thank you for showing us what kind of a person you really are. If you have a wife, she deserves the sympathy of everyone and deserves a far more INTELLIGENT, LOGICAL, and MORAL husband. Pathetic case.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          What about a kick between the legs?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          Did you have any luck coming up with the number of ADULTERESSES you know that you have told to end their adultery and marriage and repent?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          "What about a kick between the legs?"

          Yep. Let's get particular when she's trying to save YOUR life.

          That may be all she can do if you WANT her hand (or both hands) cut off. Nice guy.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "May God open your eyes that you may realize that you (falsely) imply something here (I guess you are honest). According to Romans 6 it takes place during the "dunking" as you call it."
          ------------
          Rainer, if you say that Romans 6 is speaking of water baptism, then you are forcing the word "baptism" to mean an "immersion into water." It doesn't mean that. It means "an immersion." Into what is gathered from the context. For instance:

          Mark 10:38 – (Jesus speaking) Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”
          Luke 12:50 – But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!

          Now, if the word "baptism" can ONLY mean a water baptism, then Jesus was rebaptised, which you say is a mockery of the spirit.

          The Bible is clear, neither salvation, nor impartation of the spirit occurs at baptism. Look at the thief on the cross, he was not baptized, but was saved (Luke 23:39-43). Also, in Acts 10:44-48 , the spirit was poured out FIRST on people who FIRST believed, then after their salvation (for the spirit will not take up residence with the non-elect, unsaved), AFTER they had received the spirit, then they were baptized as an outward sign only of their inward salvation brought by the spirit.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          You might read "The Cost of Discipleship" by the most honorable Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Maybe it will become clearer what is the point of the matter.

          Baptism is a divine call, a call for discipleship. We don't follow Jesus in our natural power, but in the power of His call. Salvation is "extra nos".

          April 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Did you have any luck coming up with the number of ADULTERESSES you know that you have told to end their adultery and marriage and repent?
          ------------–
          You err in thinking that the repentance of one sin involves the commission of another sin. You have no idea what metanoia is.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo

          Jesus said “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery". So it was the "MARRIES ANOTHER"
          that makes him an adulterer. Makes sense to get divorced to stop the constant state of adultery.

          What is important here is whether you have told any of these openly ADULTEROUS people that they are violating the Ten Commandments by doing so and must repent.

          So how many have you talked to and told them they were ADULTERERS?

          So far, you're not doing too well on this test for HYPOCRISY. I'd guess that your church that is so concerned about correcting sinners, hasn't talked to those particular ADULTERERS either.

          It's all pick-and-choose HYPOCRISY. Keep picking on gays and IGNORING the MUCH MUCH GREATER number of Christian ADULTERERS.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Makes sense to get divorced to stop the constant state of adultery."
          -------------–
          No. Because that would repent of one sin and then commit another. If they first had a divorce for a flippant reason, then they must either be taught about God's high calling for marriage, or they need to get saved, or both. But even you know the saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

          Repentance doesn't necessarily mean to "undo" everything that has been done, because not everything that has been done CAN actually be undone. If someone has murdered, can they "un-murder" their victim? Of course not. If someone CAN make right on a past sin without sinning further, then yes, it MUST be done. But if in the act of "repenting" you are committing yet another sin, then you have not repented.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • huhhmm

        Wow I have always thought of the Catholic church as being a little off but thank you for clarifying the exact differences. I was wondering what are you thoughts on the Catholic church and the supposed "last days." Are we to wait for some type of church/state unification where Sabbath worship is outlawed?

        April 10, 2014 at 9:29 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          It's been a while since I dove deep into eschatology, but may I recommend a good book?
          "Because the Time is Near" by John MacArthur. He dives about as deep as you can into the book of Revelation, and explains everything verse-by-verse. It doesn't read like a novel would, but more like a reference book. But it is a GREAT, and very well researched book if you're interested in eschatology.

          Also, another good book for the shelf is "Essential Truths of the Christian Faith" by R. C. Sproul. It doesn't go in nearly as deep as MacArthur does into end times, but he does a fantastic job of giving the basics of reformed theology.

          Both of these you can get from Amazon fairly inexpensive.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Doris

          Really, Theo. Does it cover John of Patmos' substance abuse problem in detail?

          April 10, 2014 at 10:04 am |
      • kudlak

        Theo
        There is no standard way to interpret the Bible, and there isn't even a standard version of the Bible in which to interpret. What are there, at least 50 translations of the Bible into English, each reflecting at least a slight difference in the meaning of what's being said. Some are even direct examples of interpretation actually changing the Bible to match, so what are you talking about standards in scripture?

        April 10, 2014 at 10:23 am |
  4. Rainer Helmut Braendlein

    "We can blame the Internet for plenty: the proliferation of po-rn, ..." Unquote.

    Indeed, there is a high temptation to watch po-rns on the Internet. But, I guess, Americans yet abused TV for watching certain movies, when the Germans still had got no TV. Actually, every technical medium can be abused, even print media (po-rn magazine).

    How to escape "watching po-rns on the Internet"? Don't have it at home where you are alone, and no human observes you, but use it at the internet cafe or any library. Few of us will be so clinical that they would dare to watch po-rns at a public place. Internet is only dangerous, if we use it at a lonely place.

    It is just a matter of handling. The Internet can be of great benefit for the one who uses it with wisdom. There are also sites about faith, Jesus, etc.

    Monday I have published an article about the drought in Bavaria and God, and immediately got a very high ranking on "google". If a Bavarian enters "Trockenheit, Bayern", he or she will certainly find my article including some statements about our current society worldwide and God's judgement. Ain't that positive?

    The Internet is not impersonal or only virtual. It depends on the user. Two users meeting each other on the web could simply arrange an appointment, and meet each other at a restaurant or so. Then it would become obvious that Internet is part of reality. Nobody would say that newspaper adverts are virtual. Imagine a job ad. If you call there, and get a job, it has turned out that the job ad was part of reality. It depends on you.

    I also would suggest to establish a culture of "real-name-using".

    April 10, 2014 at 8:11 am |
    • observer

      Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

      The Internet has done a great service to decent people everywhere. It has helped expose IGNORANT BIGOTS using the Bible as their EXCUSE.

      April 10, 2014 at 8:18 am |
    • ausphor

      Herr Helmut
      Well you get to express your opinions and rather odd brand of bigotry on the internet. How is that working out for you? Have you converted one single person to your brand of sick?

      April 10, 2014 at 8:29 am |
      • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

        One could get the impression that the Internet is an eldorado for frivolous people. More serious people should be encouraged to frequent the Web. There is no need for serious people to get frightened because of the hobgoblins (trolls).

        April 10, 2014 at 8:41 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

          Your examples of BIGOTRY form an excellent case of how pitifully backward and IGNORANT people can be even in these more enlightened times.

          April 10, 2014 at 8:48 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          There was an Enlightenment, and appreciate that, but it has become dark again.

          April 10, 2014 at 8:58 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein,

          You keep proving how dark it can be. Sad.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:03 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      "There are also sites about faith, Jesus, etc. "

      Sure but what is your point?? There are also sites that point to actual stats and sites that contradict and show why much of the bible is false and why many of the so-called prophecies are fallacious.
      How hard is this to see?? When the bible was written, mankind traveled by foot or donkey...stories were told and mixed up a long the way. As we moved further through the years, our methods of travel and communication changed. No more did we need to depend on the tribal community for our social gatherings and information...much of which was mere guesses.
      I believe some of the most drastic changes have come in the last century...since Elvis (and probably ones before) started swinging those hips to the 60's of the Beattles and the Hippy Movement and Women's lib...many no longer found a need for religion...no longer are we stuck in the small town with the same people. Now we have this wonderful tool at our finger tips and it's hard to avoid scientific news with that tool...people are sharing differing viewpoints that a great many times will contradict religion and point out the issues. Lets not forget that Christians brought upon many atrocities in our world and people do take note...at least those with an open mind.
      So how you use the internet is one thing but the more children being raised by parents like myself and Doc Vestibule, the more likely it is that religion in the form of Christianity will die off. You're very blinded if you fail to see this.

      April 10, 2014 at 8:41 am |
      • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

        No people can better get exploited than uprooted people. Certainly, the capitalistic power elite of today knows that. A lively Christian Church would give the people some backing, and they could not be totally exploited. Therefore, I guess, our current power elite undermines Christianity increasingly. They need perfect human robots for their factories, and a strong Church would stand in their's way to reach this aim. Yet, they should be aware that they sell their soul to the devil when they destroy Christianity for the sake of profit. At Judgement Day Jesus will not accept their money when they try to ransom their soul.

        April 10, 2014 at 8:57 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If you think that a predominantly Christian populace can't be corrupted, you might want to too into the Third Reich.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "look into" – sorry.
          Still working on that first cup of coffee...

          April 10, 2014 at 9:01 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Except that judgement day is not something everyone believes in and thus it is only the opinion of believers that states it. To believe that almost belittles science and it is a great reason why we are not further ahead. Instead of focussing on what we know, there are believers who see these things as prophecy but only base such things off of faith and their holy books...remaining ignorant to what is really happening in this world only stands to hurt us...I'm not going to count on faith to get me by in this world, I'll count on hard evidence and right now that evidence to pointing to how the message your ilk is sending is not the greatest or most moral of messages and in turn is holding our world back. Start looking for answers instead of thinking you have them all!

          April 10, 2014 at 9:19 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      After seeing the por/ns on the interweb, I took three marijuanas and now my doctor says I have the gays.

      April 10, 2014 at 8:56 am |
      • ausphor

        Doc
        I think you better spike that coffee with something stronger.

        April 10, 2014 at 9:15 am |
    • kudlak

      Rainer
      The invention of the printing press helped spread p0rn.
      The invention of photography helped spread p0rn.
      The invention of moving pictures helped spread p0rn.
      The invention of colour magazines helped spread p0rn.
      The invention of videotape helped spread p0rn, and so on
      The internet is just the next technology to be exploited by this industry, that's all.

      April 10, 2014 at 10:29 am |
      • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

        The state could prohibit po-rn on the Internet, but then it would get spread illegally.

        When alcohol was prohibited in the US, the black market exploded. Finally they abolished prohibition.

        Only solution: Having no private Internet connection at home (similar to buying no po-rn magazines).

        The one who buys a po-rn magazine will certainly watch it at home.

        April 10, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • observer

          Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          If Christian males didn't buy any and Christian girls didn't act in any, there probably would be no industry.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

          You exaggerate a little.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:52 am |
  5. kevinite

    The song does come to mind about how video killed the radio star and then I think where I usually hear that song that being on the radio.

    April 10, 2014 at 5:20 am |
  6. observer

    According to all the best selling Bibles, here's one of God's morals:

    (Deut. 25:11-12) “If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.”

    How could ANYONE'S OWN MORALS agree with that?

    April 10, 2014 at 1:37 am |
    • Concert in an Egg

      observer, this is about Hitler...I think.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:40 am |
      • observer

        Concert in an Egg

        Not always.

        "What we need is a Moral Law Giver to establish objective morality. I as a Christian ground morality in God's unchanging nature"
        - truthfollower01

        April 10, 2014 at 1:46 am |
    • kevinite

      19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

      24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

      (Galatians 3:19 and 24 KJV)

      April 10, 2014 at 4:11 am |
      • kevinite

        The laws that were given in the Torah, according to Paul, were given because of the the transgressions of the Israelites in those days. Like particular children who are more unruly than others (i.e. those followers of God prior to those in Moses's day) those additional stricter laws were given to remind them of who they were and to remind them of the promises and agreements made between them and God.

        Those additional stricter laws were given as a schoolmaster in order to bring maturity and prepare to receive the more open and fulfilled laws given by Jesus Christ. When those fulfilled laws were given the previous stricter laws given through Moses were no longer applied.

        However, just like when a child becomes more mature and is given more freedoms and privileges, that the saying given by Stan Lee would apply in that with greater privileges and authority (i.e. greater power) comes greater responsibility, so to violate the laws and covenants at this level can also bring about greater eternal spiritual consequences as opposed to the more physical and more merely physically based laws that were given through Moses.

        April 10, 2014 at 4:39 am |
        • observer

          kevinite

          "The laws that were given in the Torah, according to Paul, were given because of the the TRANSGRESSIONS of the Israelites in those days."

          Looks like you didn't read what I quoted.

          April 10, 2014 at 6:51 am |
        • fintronics

          God himself will kill tens of thousands if it pleases him: 1st Samuel 6:19 in the King James Version: “And he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men (50,070)”. Kill 50 000 men for looking at something?

          April 10, 2014 at 8:32 am |
        • kevinite

          Apparently "observer", you didn't understand what I said regarding the purpose for the laws of Moses in the first place.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • kevinite

          Fintronics,

          You mean to tell me that God actually punishes people for violating commandments? I mean the idea God taking away our lives for some bad thing we did. I would hate to think if God actually made it so that we will all die. I mean it not like for believers to believe that we will continue to exist in some way or another after we die because for believers death is completely final to one's existence. The sheer idea that an all knowing being of the past, present, and future could ever actually have the big picture in mind would ever be in conflict with the picture that we mere mortals have, because no picture is bigger and clearer than our own.

          April 10, 2014 at 11:51 am |
      • saggyroy

        Cornelius: [reading from the sacred scrolls of the apes] Beware the beast man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of death.

        April 10, 2014 at 5:58 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      The consequence for the immodest act was the only example of punishment by mutilation in the Pentateuch.

      The Civil and Ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and the Abrahamic Covenant applied to a specific people for a specific time, and unless they are ratified in the New Testament under the New Covenant, they are gone, and are not applicable for today.

      The Civil and Ceremonial laws were in place to govern a specific people, namely, the Jews. They (the Jews) were called out by God to be His chosen people, and as such, as a people they had to be dramatically different from the surrounding ungodly, pagan nations of the time. Israel had to be different because she was to be God’s representative nation in the world. She was to show an unbelieving world what a right relationship to God was to be like, and in order to do that, she was called out to purge the evil from among her. (Deuteronomy 19:19) This called for extreme measures in some cases.

      April 10, 2014 at 8:06 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        They were also called to inflict evil on those around them, what with all the Divine calls for murder and pillage.

        April 10, 2014 at 8:10 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          What, you mean the times when God used Israel as an arm of justice to wicked people?

          Norman Geisler once put it this way, speaking of the Canaanites: “This was a thoroughly evil culture, so much so that the Bible says it nauseated God. They were into brutality, cruelty, incest, bestiality, cultic prost.itution, and even child sacrifice by fire. They were an aggressive culture that wanted to annihilate the Israelites.” By ordering their destruction, God enacted a form of corporate capital punishment on a people that were deserving of God’s judgment for some time."

          Understand also that God did not sanction ALL of the wars recorded in the Old Testament. And all of the wars that were specifically commissioned after the time of Joshua were defensive in nature. Also, a number of battles that Israel fought on the way to and within Canaan were also defensive in nature (Exodus 17:8, Numbers 21:21-32, Deuteronomy 2:26-37, Joshua 10:4).

          Today, we have a New Covenant where the cross of Christ has put to an end the times where God used His people Israel as a tool to exact God’s judgment. Now, we live under the grace of Christ, and it is He who will exact judgment on the last day.

          April 10, 2014 at 8:20 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Judges 20:43, the 25 thousand Benjamites slain by the Israelites were described as "men of valour". They slew the animals and set the towns aflame!

          Are the Israelites being the righteous sword of the Lord during all of these melees? Was God righteous when He told them to take the enemy's women as se.x slaves (Deut 20::13, 21:10) or when He said to eat babies (Deut 28:53) ?
          What about Numbers 31 where the Isrealites takes 32,000 virgins as s.ex slaves? They even gave God a cut that time, setting aside 32 of them to be sacrificed to Him.

          April 10, 2014 at 8:38 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Sometimes, God gets ticked off with the Israelites themselves and order everyone in Jerusalem slain by His four faced, eyeball covered, four armed, bat winged Cherub minions.

          "Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
          Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
          And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city."

          – Ezekiel 9

          April 10, 2014 at 8:44 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Doc,
          Does it shock you, when you read passages like in Hosea 13:16 that “Samaria will be held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, their little ones will be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women will be ripped open…”

          Now, are you as equally disturbed when you read passages about the grace of God? Like when you read passages that reveal that God forgives sinners? (John 3:16) Or when you read that God gives compassion to people who are guilty and deserve to be judged, like Nineveh in the book of Jonah?

          Why is it that the wrath of God is somehow more disturbing than when God gives grace and mercy to people who don't deserve it??

          April 10, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          "God gives grace and mercy to people who don't deserve it"

          Tell that to the wife who God commanded lose her hand for trying to save the life of her husband.

          Please try to get serious.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:08 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          One may as well ask why people don't mention the Jewish soldier in the Third Reich's Mischlinge or all the environmental protections laws they put in place.

          April 10, 2014 at 9:09 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Soldiers (plural) in the Mischlinge....

          April 10, 2014 at 9:10 am |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo,

        This was more than just "an extreme measure", it was MINDLESS DISCRIMINATION against women. Not all that unusual for the Bible.

        April 10, 2014 at 8:21 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Wrong.

          April 10, 2014 at 8:25 am |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          The Bible is full of discrimination against women. Please read one.

          April 10, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • fintronics

          You can kill a woman if she seizes a man's private parts without his permission: Deuteronomy 25:11-1: "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity"

          April 10, 2014 at 8:33 am |
  7. Concert in an Egg

    truthfollower01

    Are we done with you little exercise? You really got nothin'

    April 10, 2014 at 1:25 am |
    • truthfollower01

      But on atheism, why does the way your brain works make you right when it comes to morality but the way Hitler’s brain works makes him wrong?

      April 10, 2014 at 1:28 am |
      • Concert in an Egg

        I didn't know Hitler so I can't tell you how his brain worked. Sorry.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:30 am |
        • truthfollower01

          That doesn't answer the question. On atheism, why is the way your brain comprehends morality superior to Hitlers?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:33 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Again, I don't know how Hitler's brain comprehended morality. I am sorry if that disappoints you.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:35 am |
        • truthfollower01

          It doesn't matter if you don't know how it comprehended morality. On atheism, Why is the way his comprehended morality inferior to the way yours comprehends morality?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:49 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          I thought you went to bed.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:51 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I'm in the process.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:53 am |
        • Doris

          At this point, I'm picturing tf lying down in bed, typing on cell phone, but with the Holy Bible applied directly to the forehead.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:56 am |
        • ssq41

          Open, of course, to Psalms 14 with verse 1 highlighted, underlined and colored over with Crayola crayon color #6 "Atomic Tangerine"...

          And he says the verse to himself as a mantra to help him fall off to sleep:

          "The fool has said in his heart...."
          "The fool has said in his..."
          "The fool...there has to be objective...morality...." zzzzzzzzzzzz

          April 10, 2014 at 2:07 am |
        • observer

          (Matt. 18:3) “And [Jesus] said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

          April 10, 2014 at 2:15 am |
        • Doris

          (J Hudson 2:14) "And I am telling you...."

          April 10, 2014 at 2:21 am |
      • sam stone

        on atheism?

        how many times do you need to be told this?

        atheism is not a moral system

        atheism is not an immoral system

        atheism is a amoral system

        atheism is a singular answer to a singular question, and that question is "do you believe in god(s)?"

        in that respect, hitler was not wrong on athiesm

        nor was he wrong on mathematics

        or electrical engineering

        or tax accounting?

        are you really this obtuse, or are you just another troll?

        April 10, 2014 at 5:59 am |
      • sam stone

        On chirstianity, why is the way you comprehend morality better than that of the shinto, muslim, jew, pagan, rastafari?

        April 10, 2014 at 6:04 am |
    • truthfollower01

      The truth is is that on atheism, morality is an illusion. If you want some horrendously evil act to be morally good than for you, it is morally good, and you wouldnt even be wrong! Sure, some people may disagree with you, but it is only their opinion. Don't you see the problem with this?

      April 10, 2014 at 1:31 am |
      • Concert in an Egg

        I disagree. If you can prove the existence of your god(s) and that morality comes to us from on high, go for it. Otherwise you are wrong in my opinion.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:38 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Concert,

          How is what I said wrong? Please specify.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:44 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          No problem. Take everything you wrote (re-read it if needed) and realize that every single thing you said is wrong.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:47 am |
        • ssq41

          Sorry, egg. We try to warn everyone in advance about tf01...he's a computer program intiated by William L. Craig that is set in a constant loop and left in a room somewhere in Craig's basement.

          He can only deal with objective morality, Hitler's mind, and the Holocaust.

          Deepest apologies.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:53 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          LOL

          April 10, 2014 at 1:55 am |
        • Doris

          lol.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:58 am |
        • ssq41

          He is "Prayerbot" after descent with modification.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • observer

          lol.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • ssq41

          Obs...LOL!

          April 10, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • fintronics

          Some morality from the bible...

          Perversity and human trafficking condoned: "Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse." (1 Peter 2:18)

          S*X slavery condoned: "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."
          Exodus 21: 7-8

          April 10, 2014 at 8:52 am |
      • Doris

        But also this reply is riddled with values good/bad values without a specification of obective/subjective. That combined with avoiding the tough questions leads me to think tf is disingenuous and dishonest more than he doesn't understand my posts.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:47 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          The truth is is that on atheism, morality is an illusion. If you want some horrendously evil act to be (subjectively) morally good than for you, it is (subjectively) morally good, and you wouldnt even be wrong! Sure, some people may disagree with you, but it is only their opinion. Don’t you see the problem with this?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:55 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "The truth is is that on atheism, morality is an illusion."

          Not sure what you mean by illusion. I would say with regard to most of the ways we discuss it, it is a concept held individually and collectively.

          tf: "If you want some horrendously evil act to be (subjectively) morally good than for you, it is (subjectively) morally good, and you wouldnt even be wrong! "

          You're doing it again. "evil", "wrong" – you're not disclosing how you mean those. But let's say that it is an act that you and I disagree as to whether or not it is hurtful to someone else. In the end my value will be weight against and by the society that I am part of, and the laws of that society. Same for you. Now you claim to have additional requirements to meet, but being that you haven't demonstrated your god nor your objective moral "truths", I can only assume you are also only using subjective judgment with people that you agree with.

          tf: "Sure, some people may disagree with you, but it is only their opinion. Don’t you see the problem with this?"
          No, since the only thing evident to me is opinion – individually and collective.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:16 am |
        • Doris

          will be weighed against

          April 10, 2014 at 2:18 am |
      • zendraxus

        actually true.

        morality is a bunch of nonsense – usually used to judge or justify an action demanded by a belief.

        stealing: wrong in most cases.....when starving to death -EAT ...just be prepared to square up when able
        killing: wrong in most cases but if you have a danger to the greater good- a known terrorist and/or murderer take him out
        lying: wrong in most cases but sometimes necessary to prevent harm to self or others.

        Ethics is more accurate. Ethics is the 'right' thing regardless of the law or belief system and doesn't get bogged down where it shouldn't.

        morality will demand a prost.itute and her 'john' are punished in some way – ethics has nothing to say about the matter.
        abortion is often painted as a 'moral' problem, the religious use morality to force the pregnancy no matter what – ethics, once again, has no position, the situation determines the action.

        April 10, 2014 at 2:40 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        tf: Stop the fallacious claims. Morality has nothing to do with your immoral book or religion. It doesn't take a book to tell us that murder is wrong and harmful or that stealing is similar. It doesn't take a book to tell us that causing harm of any form is not good.
        You should tune in to The Atheist Experience and listen to someone with true knowledge of your religion but first here is a little sampling as to what said person has to say on the subject of morality:
        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4&w=640&h=390]

        April 10, 2014 at 5:08 am |
      • igaftr

        belief follower
        "The truth is is that on atheism, morality is an illusion."
        You really do have a hard time differentiating beleif and opinion from truth.

        The illusion is thinking any "gods" have anything to do with it. You need to study how the mind works, and how nature works regarding how decisions are made, and the relative "morality" that is inherent in life. Plants show morality in their actions, beehives make decisions very similarly to the way the human mind makes decisions. It would appear that all "morality" is relative.

        There is no sign that there are any "gods" involved so your constant "on atheism" garbage is completely moot. You do not get your "morality" from any gods, you get it as part of being alive. Try studying some science instead of your book of myths.

        April 10, 2014 at 8:39 am |
      • doobzz

        The truth is is that in Christianity, morality is an illusion. If you want some horrendously evil act to be morally good then for you, it is morally good, and you wouldn't even be wrong! Sure, some people may disagree with you, but it is only their opinion. Don't you see the problem with this?

        April 10, 2014 at 10:54 am |
    • Concert in an Egg

      truthfollower01, you should be reading Doris' posts carefully. She is making sense and you are not listening to her or me. Why your obsession? It is creepy.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:34 am |
      • truthfollower01

        Concert,

        Doris subscribes to subjective morality, not objective. Subjective is opinion based.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:37 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Uh-huh.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:38 am |
        • truthfollower01

          If I thought a particular song was good and you thought it was bad, is either one of us wrong or right?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:45 am |
      • truthfollower01

        It's my obsession because I believe that you know that the Holocaust was objectively morally evil, regardless of what anyone thinks. I believe you know that even though Hitler thought what he was doing was morally good, that he really was mistaken. We can affirm the objective evil of this with God's nature as the foundation of objective morality.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:42 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          No, we can't. You can't even affirm the existence of god, much less use god as a foundation for moral activity. Morals evolved right along with us.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:45 am |
        • Doris

          Nonsense.

          Prove that you do not just have a similar opinion that you have derived in the same subjective manner as atheists, only from something that only represents a claimed unsubstantiated source.

          Prove that objective morality exists without resorting to subjective means.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:50 am |
        • hotairace

          Azzhole refuses to admit that society collectively makes pretty good decisions about what is right and wrong, and that when there are aberrations, such as his hero Hitler or Babble supported slavery, they do get corrected at some point. He further refuses to admit that if the churches of the day has stepped in, Hitler's actions would have been corrected much earlier than they were.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:52 am |
    • truthfollower01

      I'm turning in for the night. Thank you for the conversation.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:47 am |
      • observer

        truthfollower01,

        lol. Just another day that ends with retreating. Better luck next time.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:48 am |
      • Concert in an Egg

        zzzzzzzzzzzzz

        April 10, 2014 at 1:50 am |
  8. 1n2n3n4n

    The lizards who call themselves Jews are pushing their pagan garbage everywhere you turn... all over the internet, pagan garbage all over the TV.
    It's now a pagan country by design... the Cydonian lizards got a hold of Hollywood and a bunch of apple-eaters and manipulated it that way. They want as many witchcraft-apple-eating luciferians "marked for the beast" as they can get... to take home with them to their "grand matrix".

    And they even look like super-high-metabolism, malnutritioned, sunken-cheeks lizards.
    What's up with that? They're constantly on their hamster wheels while they're dreaming up their next manipulative scheme to connive, defraud, control and dominate humanity... to commit blasphemy/deny God and accept their mark of the beast into your heads. The Cydonian lizards know EXACTLY what they're doing... they're not stupid.

    April 10, 2014 at 1:20 am |
    • iamyourgod2014

      Hi it's god. just want to say thank you for speading my word and for seeing the lizards for what they are. the fire is hot an roasting for them. you are saved. thank you for passing on my message of hate!

      22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

      The first thing that Jesus and I do when someone tries to enter the gates, is say that to them, and then I either let you in or not !
      Arms crossed, poison darts, shooting from my narrowed eyes is usually the look I save for these types of non-believers.

      April 10, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
  9. Concert in an Egg

    No, I believe he was "really" wrong regardless of what he thought.

    April 10, 2014 at 12:50 am |
    • truthfollower01

      But on your atheism, it’s just your opinion versus his and why does your opinion carry any more authority than Hitler’s? If Hitler thinks your wrong, why is he not right?

      April 10, 2014 at 12:56 am |
      • Concert in an Egg

        I don't care what dead Hitler thinks about anything. What the U.S did to Native Americans was wrong and what Hitler did to the Jews was wrong and what that boy did today stabbing 20 people was wrong. You over-simplify to try and "create" a canvas wherein a god could actually exist. You are trying to give god something to do, but evolution already handled morality

        April 10, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Without God, Hitler wasn't really wrong. Think about that for a moment. It's just a difference of opinions.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:12 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Without god (which is the case) we have morals. Think about that for a second. wow.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:14 am |
        • truthfollower01

          On atheism, what are morals grounded in?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:15 am |
        • Doris

          Society and different collections of people.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:17 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          truthfollower01
          "On atheism, what are morals grounded in?"

          On planet atheism, we have brains. What planet are you from?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:21 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          A couple things.

          1. Which society and which collections of people and why do they get more authority than anyone else?

          2. Take a society in which the people thought it morally good to sacrifice their children. Are you saying they were right when they thought it was morally good?!?!

          April 10, 2014 at 1:22 am |
        • truthfollower01

          But on atheism, why does the way your brain works make you right when it comes to morality but the way Hitler's brain works makes him wrong?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Because he was a sick-o I suppose.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:26 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "1. Which society and which collections of people and why do they get more authority than anyone else?"

          Which? – Anyone from any society or group of people may give input.

          Why? – Because that's humanity – it's a part of how we interact with one another.

          2. Take a society in which the people thought it morally good to sacrifice their children. Are you saying they were right when they thought it was morally good?!?!

          OK, since you haven't proven your God, I have to assume you're asking were they subjectively right. And you've already stated how they felt. My opinion would be that they were wrong. There you go – full subjectivity.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:30 am |
    • truthfollower01

      On atheism, you may say one thing is morally evil. Someone else may say the exact same thing is morally good. Neither one is really wrong or right.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:58 am |
      • Concert in an Egg

        truthfollower01

        I have come to the conclusion, based on this convoluted exercise, that you have no common sense.

        April 10, 2014 at 1:11 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Why can one person be right and the other wrong?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:17 am |
        • Doris

          They may be in two parts of the world in two very different cultures.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:18 am |
    • truthfollower01

      What we need is a Moral Law Giver to establish objective morality. I as a Christian ground morality in God's unchanging nature and can say that Hitler was indeed wrong even though he thought what he was doing was morally good.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:01 am |
      • observer

        truthfollower01,

        Do you agree with ALL of the morals in the Bible?

        April 10, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. If your asking if God can act immoral than my answer is no, He cannot.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:07 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Do you agree with ALL of the morals in the Bible?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:08 am |
        • truthfollower01

          See my above post.

          In addition, I don't believe that God EVER acts immorally in the Bible if this is what you are asking.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:15 am |
        • fintronics

          Cannibalism: "And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29)

          April 10, 2014 at 10:28 am |
    • Doris

      Let's review:

      truthf wants his audience to commit to a value for a non-specific "good/bad/correct/incorrect/evil", etc. without making it clear which is being agreed to. When honestly discussing objective versus subjective morality all values for "good" "bad", etc. should be specified.

      @truth

      Prove that you do not just have a similar opinion that you have derived in the same subjective manner as atheists, only from something that only represents a claimed unsubstantiated source.

      Prove that objective morality exists without resorting to subjective means.

      April 10, 2014 at 1:10 am |
  10. zendraxus

    internet, college = knowledge and information.

    If you organization is shrinking because of greater access to information, when you realize your organization focuses on children and misery to have the maximum chance to lock in its hold....maybe,.... just maybe its time to step back and look at the nature of that organization.

    April 10, 2014 at 12:28 am |
  11. Dyslexic doG

    Oh no!!! Religious folk can't keep their children in the propaganda bubble any more. They are finding out facts and realizing how mind numbingly foolish religion is. Oh no!!! Let's make a movie about the sun revolving around the earth! Oh no!!! Let's make a picture of a crockoduck! Oh no, surely our god and jesus won't become like zeus and apollo ...

    April 10, 2014 at 12:15 am |
    • Dalahäst

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-church-full-of-brainwashed-idiots-feeds-town,34860/

      April 10, 2014 at 12:19 am |
      • Concert in an Egg

        Funny AND true.

        April 10, 2014 at 12:21 am |
        • Dalahäst

          A great parody of the irrational aspects of atheism.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:36 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          No, even though it is a parody, it rings true about the Christians.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Not really.

          "It is basically making fun of atheists who feel superior to religious people (or maybe anti-theists). Showing that alot of religious people (who some atheists would call brainwashed idiots) are nice and charitable people who just happen to identify with a religion. Unfortunatly I see this same kind of stuff on r/atheism all the time, and it is not meant to be satirical. "

          http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1ubmuz/local_church_full_of_brainwashed_idiots_feeds/

          If you don't get the joke, it is probably lampo.oning you.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          I get the joke, I think it is funny, and stereotypes are often true.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:52 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. Most religious people are nice and charitable. And the atheists that rail against them are the ones that actually act like brainwashed idiots. That stereotype is spot on. I agree with you.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:00 am |
        • fintronics

          The "brainwashed idiots" are the one's that believe in imaginary ghosts.. "holy spirits"... quite the deluded bunch.

          April 10, 2014 at 10:29 am |
    • Concert in an Egg

      My kids just chuckle when the subject of gods come up. They are smart kids and I am proud then haven't bent to the peer pressure of the Christian kids.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:19 am |
  12. zendraxus

    College education at 5%? wow! – most people I know that lost their religion started to question in college....and by the end at the very least they'd left their brand behind.

    The internet has played its part though- more than the stated 20% – when you can fact check and compare what the religious leadership is saying vs how they are actually living on a global scale- yeah the internet has really taken a bite out of the gravy train.

    Hopefully it will be able to breach the wall our politicians have thrown around themselves as well.

    April 10, 2014 at 12:05 am |
  13. nooneinparticular79

    People use the internet to access unprecedented levels of information. It should come as no surprise that access to information leads to the decline of religion. /shrug

    April 9, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
  14. kaiypov

    ____________Pause the WAR____________
    My name is Emil Kaiypov. I am a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic, a lawyer, and a father of two children. The proposal for which I am asking your kind support is the suspension of all currently existing hostilities on Earth.

    The main goal of my entire project is to save and improve the lives of children who are suffering from the present conflicts and violence.

    The challenge is to create a moment of "pause" [a technical term from video language] in hostilities now and in the future, as well as to refusal to restart them at all. I believe that in this context, such "pause" in the war action seems do-able and practical, much more effective than the idealistic and utopian pressing of an imaginary "stop" button. In the future the first action will equate to the second: "pause" will become "stop". In order to alert the international community and potential supporters, I made a demonstration of my own at 18 October 2013 on the territory of Syrian embassy in Beirut, with poster "pause the war".

    The purpose of this demonstration, is to show through an example that:

    1) one person has the power to perform an action directed to the benefit of all mankind.

    2) no one should be indifferent, when war is concerned.

    3) war requires us to drop everything else, in order to stop it. Daily activities, against the background of war, look meaningless and empty.

    I believe, that this idea will resonate and supporters will wish to join it. The age of information technologies, will help to spread it around the globe. Definitely there will be supporters among the world's famous celebrities. In the event that a large number of ordinary people and celebrities join this campaign, the dream to stop all military actions on the planet will be realized. This will serve as an occasion to announce the call for volunteers in the "international army of peace". It will consist of unarmed "soldiers" who are ready at any time, to go to the hot spot to "pause" the hostilities with the fact of their presence and to encourage the warring parties to engage in dialogue. Ideally, this army should consist of a world-famous and beloved celebrities from all spheres of human activities.

    I suggest that countries be ready to support my initiative, in solidarity, by placing on the cloth of their national flags, the well-known pause symbol "II". I believe that in the course of implementation of this anti-war action, the reasons for which the suspended armed conflict began, will be resolved or continued in a civilized manner. This anti-war action will bring about a new peaceful reality, when there will be no state left, which "international army of peace" had not visited.

    The termination of all hostilities, will become the point of departure for further continuous progress in all directions.

    We are able to bring about the time, when the world will be fairly managed by a workable international organization which will be trusted by all citizens of the earth. When this happens, all kinds of weapons will be transferred to international United Nations control, the purpose of which, will be the preservation of peace and sustainable development of mankind.

    We live in a world, when the collective effort makes possible the colonizing of other planets in the foreseeable future. I believe, that we have enough strength and resources for the child born tomorrow to see a world, where uniform international standards of education, labor, pension and medical care, will be established everywhere. A world, where the primary human needs will be satisfied for free.

    A world, where nobody talks about freedom, because absolute freedom will accompany each person from the moment of birth, to his last breath. A world, where the happiness and freedom of the individual, will not happen in isolation but will include freedom and happiness of all of humanity. A world without war.

    A world without war is undisputed goal, that sooner or later humanity will definitely reach. It is the primary duty of every adult to fulfill a "world in peace"– everyone’s childhood dream. Every child surrounded by the horrors of war dreams that one day somebody will come and say "It is enough!" and by saying it bring war to an end. Then war will stop. That day has come! It's time to combine our efforts in order to make that dream come true.

    April 9, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      I am having trouble deciding if I want to read your whole post or not. When I spotted this: "..."pause" [a technical term from video language]..." I laughed but is the rest this funny?

      April 9, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
      • kaiypov

        ______________________________________________________pause the war

        My name is Emil Kaiypov. I am a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic, a lawyer, and a father of two children. The proposal for which I am asking your kind support is the suspension of all currently existing hostilities on Earth.

        The main goal of my entire project is to save and improve the lives of children who are suffering from the present conflicts and violence.

        The challenge is to create a moment of "pause" [a technical term from video language] in hostilities now and in the future, as well as to refusal to restart them at all. I believe that in this context, such "pause" in the war action seems do-able and practical, much more effective than the idealistic and utopian pressing of an imaginary "stop" button. In the future the first action will equate to the second: "pause" will become "stop". In order to alert the international community and potential supporters, I made a demonstration of my own at 18 October 2013 on the territory of Syrian embassy in Beirut, with poster "pause the war".

        The purpose of this demonstration, is to show through an example that:

        1) one person has the power to perform an action directed to the benefit of all mankind.

        2) no one should be indifferent, when war is concerned.

        3) war requires us to drop everything else, in order to stop it. Daily activities, against the background of war, look meaningless and empty.

        I believe, that this idea will resonate and supporters will wish to join it. The age of information technologies, will help to spread it around the globe. Definitely there will be supporters among the world's famous celebrities. In the event that a large number of ordinary people and celebrities join this campaign, the dream to stop all military actions on the planet will be realized. This will serve as an occasion to announce the call for volunteers in the "international army of peace". It will consist of unarmed "soldiers" who are ready at any time, to go to the hot spot to "pause" the hostilities with the fact of their presence and to encourage the warring parties to engage in dialogue. Ideally, this army should consist of a world-famous and beloved celebrities from all spheres of human activities.

        I suggest that countries be ready to support my initiative, in solidarity, by placing on the cloth of their national flags, the well-known pause symbol "II". I believe that in the course of implementation of this anti-war action, the reasons for which the suspended armed conflict began, will be resolved or continued in a civilized manner. This anti-war action will bring about a new peaceful reality, when there will be no state left, which "international army of peace" had not visited.

        The termination of all hostilities, will become the point of departure for further continuous progress in all directions.

        We are able to bring about the time, when the world will be fairly managed by a workable international organization which will be trusted by all citizens of the earth. When this happens, all kinds of weapons will be transferred to international United Nations control, the purpose of which, will be the preservation of peace and sustainable development of mankind.

        We live in a world, when the collective effort makes possible the colonizing of other planets in the foreseeable future. I believe, that we have enough strength and resources for the child born tomorrow to see a world, where uniform international standards of education, labor, pension and medical care, will be established everywhere. A world, where the primary human needs will be satisfied for free.

        A world, where nobody talks about freedom, because absolute freedom will accompany each person from the moment of birth, to his last breath. A world, where the happiness and freedom of the individual, will not happen in isolation but will include freedom and happiness of all of humanity. A world without war.

        A world without war is undisputed goal, that sooner or later humanity will definitely reach. It is the primary duty of every adult to fulfill a "world in peace"– everyone’s childhood dream. Every child surrounded by the horrors of war dreams that one day somebody will come and say "It is enough!" and by saying it bring war to an end. Then war will stop. That day has come! It's time to combine our efforts in order to make that dream come true.

        April 10, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
  15. alsarg72

    The Internet just gives unprecedented access to information. Access to information is killing religion.

    April 9, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
    • nooneinparticular79

      I just posted almost the exact same thing. Sorry for the unintentional plagiarism; you are completely right.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
  16. colin31714

    You only have to look at the post by Dalahast below, virtually c.umming in his underwear over his Jesus wet dream, to see the poisoning effects of committed religious beliefs. I think a psychiatrist could write a paper on the ability of people like him to work themselves into a semi org.asmic trance over their sky fairy.

    April 9, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Yes, I was just explaining to Dalahäst that Jesus, if he lived, is dead. Real easy stuff to understand but he does not. He has a child-like mind.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
      • colin31714

        HE does. Actually, it is worse. I can just picture the poor idiot, locked in his room, jumping out of his skin with joy as he types his nauseating diatribe about how his "one size fits all" Jesus will solve all his problems and make him live happily ever after he dies in heaven.

        Poor moron, its pretty clear to all but him that he has deep psychological issues. What is interesting though, is the phenomenal ability of the religious mind to create its own solutions to its problems and outsource them to non-existent, childishly convenienced beings.

        April 9, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.

          But you do have a big imagination. Sometimes you play like a teacher. And sometimes like a psychiatrist. Cute!

          April 9, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Colin,

          Answer a few questions for me if you would.
          1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
          2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
          3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
          4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
          If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and follow Jesus as Lord. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Please get off that self-righteous irrelevant "morality" kick. It's nonsense. The world is the SAME as before your Jebus died, NOTHING has changed. Humans are the SAME. Beligion is the answer to NOTHING.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          BTW, you seem to have ignored that other story. You "saved" people ain't so "saved" now are you ? The "salvation" paradigm is childish crap.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Bucky,

          What other story?

          April 9, 2014 at 11:52 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I see your are posting more messages of the self hatred your religion promotes. Why is your religion so interested in getting people to feel bad about themselves?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • Bob

          tf01, regarding your Jesus-sacrifice-salvation story, it is a steaming pile of stinking output of the back end of a bull. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. The foundation of your whole religion is utter nonsense.

          In addition, one should take a closer look at the evil instructions in your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, purportedly from your vicious, murderous sky fairy. From both foul testaments:

          Numbers 31:17-18
          17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
          18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

          Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

          Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

          Leviticus 25
          44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
          45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
          46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

          Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

          Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

          And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          April 10, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Bob,

          "one should take a closer look at the evil instructions"

          To address a huge question upfront. On atheism, why is anything "evil"?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:05 am |
      • Concert in an Egg

        @truthfollower01

        1. I have no idea. A few.
        2. Yes
        3. Yes
        4. Yes

        Just playing your little quiz show you can't stop posting over and over and over and over and over....

        April 9, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          I appreciate your honesty.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Its important that you understand your true standing before the holy and righteous God of the universe.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Why do you appreciate my honesty? What is the point? I don't get it.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          What god of the universe? Prove such a being exists and I will start worrying and wringing my hands.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Concert,

          Do you believe that objective morality exists (morality independent of anyone's opinion)?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • LibertyQueen

          Watch out Egg. Next question will be about Hitler.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:11 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Liberty,

          Why should Concert watch out? It's a valid question for the atheist concerning morality? What is your view on the matter?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          That depends on your definition of "objective morality". Are there universal moral principles? Do such universal principles exist outside of one's culture? I would argue that there are universal principles rooted in biological imperatives (such as rejection of incest) but such universally accepted principles are very broad and not useful in day to day use. Therefore relative morality in more common. I believe evolution and environment shapes our morality.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:15 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Concert,

          If Hitler thought what he did was morally good, was he wrong? If so, why?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:19 am |
        • observer

          Concert in an Egg,

          Be aware that truthfollower WILL NOT answer any of your questions about what morals he actually supports if you are at all selective in choosing them.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:21 am |
        • Doris

          @Liberty Queen. Bingo! lol

          April 10, 2014 at 12:22 am |
        • Doris

          @truth

          Do you mean:

          If Hitler thought what he did was morally good, was he objectively morally wrong? "

          or do you mean :

          If Hitler thought what he did was morally good, was he subjectively morally wrong? "

          April 10, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          truthfollower is trying to get you to feel bad about yourself.

          Christianity gives its followers the disease (sin) and then offers the cure (salvation). It's a great scam.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          I gave you my answer concerning the last verses you quoted.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          @truthfollower01

          "If Hitler thought what he did was morally good, was he wrong? If so, why?"

          Your question is worded poorly. Was he wrong? Yes. Did he know he was wrong? I have no way of knowing. Why? People are more valuable alive than dead.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:27 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          What was your answer? Was it "No because all the major Bibles contain ERRORS in what they say"?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:29 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          I understand your view on the matter.

          However, If morality is subjective then it doesn't really exist. You say one thing is morally good. Someone else says the exact same thing is morally evil. Neither one is right or wrong.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:30 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Did I win?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:31 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Concert,

          But what if Hitler thought it morally good to exterminate the Jewish race rather than let them live. On atheism, why is he wrong?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • Doris

          @truth

          What do you mean by "on atheism"?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:37 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          I can only speak for myself. I think exterminating people is bad.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          But what if the Jews thought it morally good to exterminate the Amalekites rather than let them live. On christianity, why are they wrong?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • truthfollower01

          When I say "on atheism" I'm talking about a world without God.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:42 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          The universe "on" atheism. Life is good.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:44 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Concert,

          Doesn't it concern you that on atheism, Hitler isn't really wrong when he thought what he did was morally good? It's merely your opinion versus his.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          No, I believe he was "really" wrong regardless of what he thought...

          April 10, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • truthfollower01

          But on your atheism, it's just your opinion versus his and why does your opinion carry any more authority than Hitler's? If Hitler thinks your wrong, why is he not right?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • Doris

          @Concert

          truthf wants you to commit to a value for a non-specific "good/bad/correct/incorrect/evil", etc. without making it clear which you may be agreeing with. When honestly discussing objective versus subjective morality all values for "good" "bad", etc. should be specified.

          @truth

          Prove that you do not just have a similar opinion that you have derived in the same subjective manner as atheists, only from something that only represents a claimed unsubstantiated source.

          Prove that objective morality exists without resorting to subjective means.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:58 am |
        • Doris

          @Concert – see my reply at 12:25.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:59 am |
        • Doris

          @Concert (and note that question was not answered)

          April 10, 2014 at 1:00 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          I don't care what dead Hitler thinks about anything. What the U.S did to Native Americans was wrong and what Hitler did to the Jews was wrong and what that boy did today stabbing 20 people was wrong. You over-simplify to try and "create" a canvas wherein a god could actually exist. You are trying to give god something to do, but evolution already handled morality.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:00 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Doris, yes I read that. truthyfollower won't answer.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:02 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          truthfollower01, I have come to the conclusion, based on this convoluted exercise, that you have no common sense.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:06 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          I'm talking about "If Hitler thought what he did was morally good, was he objectively morally wrong? ”

          There's not point talking about subjectively morally wrong. In this case it's just your opinion versus Hitlers and neither one of you is right or wrong.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:10 am |
        • Doris

          @truth

          Well, tf – before you can ask for someone else's opinion on something that involves objective moral "truths" I think you first have to prove they exist on their own; prove something about them, like their source. Can you demonstrate objectively either the source for objective morality or your God without resorting to subjectivity – you know without the possibility of tainting your conclusions?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:15 am |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Doris, tf is not really competent to understand what you are asking I don't think.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:18 am |
    • Dalahäst

      I imagine an psychiatrist or therapist would see your religious-like pointing out of flaws and failures of those you scapegoats and draw up lazy stereotypes as an indication of something troubling deep inside yourself.

      I've actually spoken to a psychiatrist about my beliefs and experiences. They certainly didn't suggest anything like you do. No surprise there. They didn't tell me there own beliefs, so they may have been an atheist. But not an irrational atheist like you. I doubt not many psychiatrists, whether religious or non-religious, do the search and refute thing with Christians like you.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
      • zendraxus

        Some of us, obviously myself included, think that religion,gods etc. have muddied the waters long enough. The rich have used it to great effect to move the masses in the direction they want them to go. It STILL clouds American politics to such a degree that it is derailing our education, our health, and preventing critical changes to our policies that could well lead us to our extinction. For me, religion is anything but a joke, itd be fine if your collective choices impacted only you, but the truth is the religious are dragging us all right along with them.

        April 10, 2014 at 12:54 am |
        • Dalahäst

          And the choices of non-religious bigots, hate mongers and criminals effect me, too. But I don't feel the need to blame them all for such things.

          Most religious people support the same causes you do. It is not religion that causes it. It is human nature.

          Luckily our mostly Christian nation fights for principles that give others a voice.

          Often my voice isn't heard. I'm not represented by the majority. And blaming religion for that problem solves nothing.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • zendraxus

          Dalahast,

          a bigot targets a person directly, unfairly attacking things that person has no control over..skin color, nationality, disability.

          we are attacking your beliefs in a deity.... that is not sacred ground – and as with any of us that make claims you need to justify that claim...if it has merit, you can show evidence (a solid argument in this case) that backs your claim. If not, prepare for ridicule....be it religion, science (science actually improves under scrutiny) and any arbitrary statement.

          in a word...don't take it personal. it isn't in most cases on this board.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:34 am |
    • Tuscany Dream

      Lmao the way he uses " anti-theist" all the time is just stupid.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I can't say atheists, because most atheists don't go around saying "sky fairy" and "bronze age fairy tales".

        It is usually just insecure and hostile anti-theists you treat their atheism like a religion and ironically act just like the religious people they profess to be superior to.

        Thankfully most atheists aren't like these few. And most are wiser than me in that they avoid them like the plague.

        April 9, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          There is a distinction between thinking one is superior to another versus just recognizing that someone is goofy in the head. Just because I think you are delusional doesn't mean I think I am better than you. Concerned maybe.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Don't worry about me. It is just a few anti-theists on this blog that have a problem with me.

          I know and love many atheists, and none suggest the nonsense that the few on here do. It is certainly nothing new anyone is saying.

          I can go onto to hundreds of anti-theist websites and read the same philosophies and generalizations about people who believe in God. The same thing you and Colin post. Clearly you guys learn from the same websites. Go internet atheists!

          April 9, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
        • Tuscany Dream

          You're using it as a sign of contempt. And it shows.
          You're lumping every atheist on this board together. Using that sane logic, would you care to see overzealous rabid Christian used on a post when somebody talks to you?

          April 9, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No there is a big distinction between atheists, and the hostile anti-theists on this blog that search and refute Christians in a proselytizing-like manner.

          I would never lump all atheists in the same category as you. They wouldn't appreciate that.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Not that I have looked, but you can go onto to hundreds of anti-theist websites? I have never even seen one. Can you give me an example of one? So you think these web sites influence me? Incorrect.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Where did you learn it from?

          Most of what I hear is regurgitated philosophy from Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris.

          A few are kind of behind the times. Thank God the internet is killing the new atheist movement. Although a few still hang on. It is a cognitive dissonance thing.

          "But the movement that threatened to form has petered out. Crucially, atheism’s younger advocates are reluctant to compete for the role of Dawkins’s disciple. They are more likely to bemoan the new atheist approach and call for large injections of nuance. A good example is the pop-philosopher Julian Baggini. He is a stalwart atheist who likes a bit of a scrap with believers, but he’s also able to admit that religion has its virtues, that humanism needs to learn from it. For example, he has observed that a sense of grati.tude is problematically lacking in secular culture, and suggested that humanists should consider ritual practices such as fasting. "

          http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

          April 10, 2014 at 12:02 am |
        • Tuscany Dream

          Explain:
          "I would never lump all atheists in the same category as you. They wouldn’t appreciate that."

          Want some Ben-gay fir that leap? Because I'm not atheist nor anti-theist.

          But you sure are defensive....do questions typically elicit such an overreaction?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:03 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Sorry if I got you wrong. What are you?

          I'm tired of anti-religious bigots, so I give them a taste of their own medicine. And often resort to acting like they do. Forgive me.

          Their hypocrisy is scary, yet kind of funny to point out.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • fintronics

          "Their hypocrisy is scary, yet kind of funny to point out."

          Pot = meet kettle

          April 10, 2014 at 10:33 am |
  17. fweioff

    Education, intelligence, and rationality are killing religion. Brainwashing your kids in a futile attempt to validate your own ridiculous beliefs is borderline child abuse.

    April 9, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Not borderline, it IS child abuse. I feel sorry for those children.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
  18. modestypress

    1. Humans "think" we are rational. Humans know we are going to die. Humans know that life is unfair. Humans want to communicate and merge with other humans. There is absolutely NO empirical evidence that the creature known as god exists. Trying to remove the dissonance of all such contradictory (and obvious) information blows our tiny brains. The "critical mass" produces the nonsense we call religious belief. God made a mistake when she made us intelligent. A mistake she will not make again, especially since IT itself is imaginary and insane.

    April 9, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Not sure I follow you on number 1, but I am standing by for number 2 of your list.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
  19. Dalahäst

    Religion is of this world. Jesus is from heaven.

    Religion tells us to do. Jesus tells us it is done.

    Religion tells us to focus on sin in the flesh in order to modify our behavior. Jesus tells us to focus on Him in the Spirit in order to bring forth the fruit of the Spirit in our lives.

    Religion says our heart as a believer is evil still. Jesus says our heart as a believer is new and good, with no evil.

    Religion is all about the outward and seen. Jesus is all about the inward and unseen.

    Religion tries to repair and fix the old creation. Jesus made us a New Creation!

    Religion’s yoke is hard work. Jesus said His yoke was easy.

    Religion uses fear to manipulate people to act. Jesus’ love compels people to act, with joy!

    Religion is proud. Jesus is humble.

    Religion says we must continually confess our sins to stay cleansed and righteous. Jesus says our sins have been taken away, past, present and future, and they are no longer being counted against us!

    Religion says that sins are being counted against the believer. Jesus says His righteousness is being counted for the believer!

    Religion is blind. Jesus gives us new eyes to see the unseen.

    Religion is all about the knowledge of good and evil. Jesus is all about His Life in us!

    Religion is boring. Jesus is an unexpected journey and adventure!

    Religion is an old cell phone where the service has been cancelled. Jesus is a new cell phone with new service!

    Religion is insecure. Jesus is confident and secure.

    Religion is compet.itive and envious. Jesus is a rest.

    Religion says we must love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength first! Jesus said He first loved us and that we are to believe first that He loves us with all His heart, soul, mind and strength!

    Religion thinks itself wise. Jesus thinks Religion is foolish.

    Religion is a dead end. Jesus is an open door to endless possibilities!

    Religion is man-centered. Jesus is God-centered.

    Religion wants to control other men. Jesus wants to set men free to live by Him.

    Religion is death. Jesus is Life!

    Religion is depressing. Jesus is joy unspeakable and full of glory!

    Religion keeps people in a boat that is sinking. Jesus empowers people to walk out of the boat onto the water to Him!

    Religion’s gospel is “fear the Lord and obey His commandments!” Jesus’ gospel is “believe on Me and fear not, for I give you my righteousness!”

    Religion is about rules to keep. Jesus is about His love to receive.

    Religion tries to get people to keep God’s laws so that the people will be righteous. Jesus tries to get people to see that He kept all the laws for them and they need only believe in Him to be righteous.

    Religion is bondage. Jesus is freedom!

    Religion needs money to exist. Jesus’ life needs no silver or gold to live and prosper!

    Religion is mean to you when you do not agree with it. Jesus is kind even to those who nailed His hands and feet.

    Religion says to change you must see your sin! Jesus says to change you must look away from your sin and see Him!

    Religion is Satan’s tool. Jesus is God’s Son!

    April 9, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Jesus says he came to divide families.

      April 9, 2014 at 10:24 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Kind of.

        I think his point was that can be the cost of discipleship. So he offered that as a warning. It doesn't have to be, but you have to be willing to accept that some will hate or mistreat you for following Christ. Even your own family members.

        April 9, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          This doesn't say people will hate his disciples...this says his disciples are to hate those that don't follow...nice try.

          April 9, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No it doesn't. Not if you put it into context. Clearly this is not absolute or literal. Did you read what he said before that? And after?

          Sure, if you take it out of context and read it like you suggest – you can draw that conclusion. I don't draw that conclusion.

          April 9, 2014 at 10:52 pm |
        • Tuscany Dream

          It's always out of context, when it's something you can't defend.
          Or translated wrong.
          Or not to be taken literally (although God's word is supposed to be inerrant.)
          Or whatever.

          Sure.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Some people like to cherry pick quotes out of the Bible to prove that it is evil and immoral.

          But if you use some understanding you can often see what they insist really isn't true.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          Christians are always cherry-picking from the Bible. That's how some Christian HYPOCRITES can CHOOSE negative verses about gays rather than CHOOSE the Golden Rule.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          There is no cherry picking about it Dala, follow Jesus and reject those that don't including your family. It is pretty cut and dry. I only quoted what was said. And yes I did read what was before and after....that is the message.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          We definitely don't reject them. We are still called to love them. That verse comes up in church often – it certainly isn't cherry picked around. And people that seem to have a better understanding of the text than you offer a different understanding. I agree with them. And not you.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Anti-theists are always cherry-picking from the Bible. That's how some Anti-theists. HYPOCRITES can CHOOSE negative verses about hating relatives rather than CHOOSE the Golden Rule.

          Blessed already proved that.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          And, yes, some Christians do cherry-pick verses.

          And anti-theists do, too.

          They do a lot of things alike. That is why they come to the same blogs.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:55 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          The fact that your "wonderful" book specifically requires hatred of family isn't my fault, and me pointing it out isn't hypocracy. I am glad you don't follow that advice...but it is there and other Christians do use it in the way I am. Of course your version rejects that interpretation....it wouldn't play well to the masses otherwise.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:30 am |
        • Dalahäst

          That is not what that literature suggests. I believe that you believe it does. I've never heard any scholar put it the way you do. But, I'm sure you imagine you know better.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:44 am |
        • Bob

          This "context" weaseling that Dalahast/AE or whatever he is calling himself this week is trying to pull off is simply bullshit. He will also often resort to personal attacks. Step back from his inevitable such attacks and ask yourself how it is that a "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

          So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

          And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic "god" (heavy quotes) can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          April 10, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Hey Bob! Thanks for sharing. You are so cool and your posts are so helpful. I know most people don't respond to your posts, poor guy. And you think it is so relevant that when the board changed to registered names I changed from AE to Dala because I thought 2 letter names were not allowed... ...but don't let that stop you from imagining it being due to me being a weasel.

          Take what ever straws you can grasp for and act just as nasty as the god you claim I worship.

          Good job Bob!

          April 10, 2014 at 12:58 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I've never heard any scholar put it the way you do."

          Ever hear of the Jehovah's witnesses? They are just one example that interpret that verse the way I am using it.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:59 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Cool. You guys have that in common.

          Instead of going door to door, you spread your message on blogs all day. You have lots in common.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:02 am |
        • Bob

          And yet another personal attack by our local ass hole, Dalahast. No one is surprised.

          Dala, fuck off and die painfully. Soon, please.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:02 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Are you really that dumb?

          You commit the same foul you accuse me of.

          What a hypocrite you are. No one really cares that you are a hypocrite, because no one really pays attention to your posts... but still.

          You clearly are failing to live up to your own ideals. Are you cool with that? Or do your double standards seem ok in your imagination?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:07 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Instead of going door to door, you spread your message on blogs all day."

          Says the guy who posted the preachy "Religion sucks...Jesus is cool" garbage....the irony is thick.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:07 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I do come on here to talk about God. It is a good venue for that. religion.blogs.cnn.com Makes sense. It is logical that one would see such a thing here.

          So, yea, like Jehova's Witnesses and you – I like to talk about God a lot.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:13 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Well good I am glad you admit it. But why are you disparaging others for responding to you?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Too often people on here tell me what they imagine I believe. Instead of sharing what they believe and works for them. Too often it involves them pointing out all the flaws they see in religious people – as if such flaws didn't exist in them or non-religious people. I will definitely speak out against that.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:32 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Except I didn't do any of that, I pointed out flaws in the book, I pointed out flaws in the dogma, I pointed out flaws in your preaching. Too often you equate opposition to your ideas as opposition to you and take it personal. g'nite

          April 10, 2014 at 1:48 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

      April 9, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        That's not saying to divide families.

        April 9, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          You are right Topher....Hate doesn't divide...it brings people together.

          April 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          It's not saying to actually hate someone. That would be against Scripture. He's saying to hate someone in comparison to how much they love Him. You're taking the quote out of context.

          April 9, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "He's saying to hate someone in comparison to how much they love Him."

          I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. But regardless, the creator of the universe either can't communicate properly or has poor editing skills.

          Or this had nothing to do with a god and was written by men only. That makes the most sense.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • believerfred

          Blessed
          The verse was well understood at the time. It is also not a verse subject to conflicting opinion among theologians (even liberal ones). Taken in context “Hate” requires loyalty to family and self be secondary to following Jesus. Hate is used so that it is understood there is a clear division in choice not divisiveness among family.

          You should wonder why if your skeptic theory is correct those who doctored up the words to sound good in such detail failed to edit the word "hate". Better yet why not make up a prosperity Gospel instead of one the says you will suffer on my account. Why not just display a makeshift body of a dead Christ if you want to discredit this foolish belief.

          April 10, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Yep.

        Does this mean we must literally hate our own parents, wife, children, etc.? Notice that Jesus says we must even hate our own lives. Clearly this is not absolute or literal. We are told to love others as we love ourselves, and no one hates his own flesh (see again Matt. 22:36-40; Eph. 5:29).

        "Hate" here does not mean to have no love at all nor to actively seek the harm of others. All Bible passages must be understood by comparing them to other passages. Many other Scriptures command us to love everyone (Matt. 22:36-40). Surely that includes our family. Ephesians 5:22-25 commands men to love their wives, and Ti.tus 2:4 commands wives to love their husbands and children. Clearly, then, Luke 14:26 does not literally mean to hate our family members.

        Sometimes the Bible uses the term "hate" in a comparative sense. Genesis 29:31 says that Jacob hated his wife Leah, but v30 shows that really this means he loved Rachel, his other wife, more than he did Leah. So "hate" is used in a comparative sense to mean "loving one thing or person less that we love another." See also Genesis 25:34.

        This is the point in Luke 14:26. Jesus is not saying that we are to have malice or ill will toward our family. That would contradict other plain passages. Instead, Christ is saying that we must always put Him before our families. Our love for Christ must be greater than our love for anyone or anything else.

        Matthew 10:37 helps to explain Luke 14:26. Jesus said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

        We may never actually be required to literally give up our relationship with our loved ones to please the Lord, and we may never be required to actually die for His cause, but we must be willing to do so. Many have had to do these things. And even if we don't actually give up our family, their desires must always come second to the will of Jesus. And even if we don't physically die for His cause, we must devote our lives to seeking His cause above all else. This is what it means to bear our cross and follow Him (see Luke 9:23-27).

        April 9, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          The reason there are contradicting verses is because there are multiple authors that had different ideas about what messages are important. It makes sense in that context. It doesn't make sense in the context of a single message sent by a god.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:03 am |
        • Dalahäst

          It doesn't make sense to you.

          To others it does make sense. You aren't the judge of what makes sense or not. Neither are the multiple authors that told you what you believe, either.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:11 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "You aren't the judge of what makes sense or not."

          Actually I am...and so are you...as is everyone else.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. You are sharing your opinion – hence the opinion blog.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:39 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          The point is the Bible can be interpreted to say and mean whatever the person or groups want it to say and mean. That is not a benefit and does not make me think it is a message from a god, it is a huge flaw. That doesn't indicate divine inspiraton...it indicates human inspiration. I am glad you have a "nicer" interpretation than other christians...but I have no reason to think you are right and they are wrong...or vice versa.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • Dalahäst

          It helps me understand God's ways. What you try to twist it into doesn't surprise me. You are not the first to try and do that. I'm not sure if you thought you were being clever or revealing something I wouldn't openly discuss.

          April 10, 2014 at 12:54 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I am pointing out your take on Jesus is just one of many

          April 10, 2014 at 1:03 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No sh.t, I'm quite aware of that. I'm pointing out your take on Jesus seems to miss His point.

          But you don't choose to follow HIm, so our takes are going to be quite different. But I certainly don't agree with what you suggest about the texts.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:11 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I'm pointing out your take on Jesus seems to miss His point."

          How do I know his point is your take?

          April 10, 2014 at 1:19 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You seek that out for yourself.

          It is about a relationship with our living God. And not knowing about God. Hence the no need for a religion, but the need for the one that can lead us to God.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:30 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Jesus didn't write anything himself. The only things you know about Jesus is what other people said about him. You don't trust "Jesus"...you trust what other people said about Jesus....sounds a lot like religion to me.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Nope. There are other ways to know Jesus. What others have said are helpful. But I have experienced Christ in a personal way – I have to decide, who will I serve: Christ or myself? Obviously I serve myself too much. That is why I'm on here ranting and not actually doing anything. Just the same ol hypocrite I was as an atheist.

          "Biblical Christianity is radical. It demands a lifestyle contrary to our natural impulses and at odds with culture at large. To comply with the words, directives and commands of Jesus requires a willingness to change at every level of our lives. The decision to turn from our ways and replace them with God's ways is called repentance."

          Thanks for making me realize this is a waste of time. There is greater purpose to my life than these message board antics. Peace and thanks!

          April 10, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • hotairace

          There are no ways to actually *know* jesus. There are a number of ways to pretend you know jesus: drugs, mental illness, indoctrination, force, etc.

          April 10, 2014 at 1:55 am |
      • Vic

        Luke 14:26 Cross Reference:

        Matthew 10:37
        "37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (NASB)

        Jesus Christ was speaking about the cost of discipleship with Him when a multitude followed Him as He was starting His Ministry. Keep in mind that it is very possible that the families of those people opposed following Jesus Christ and they had to choose between them.

        April 9, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • Vic

          I just noticed, this was already addressed @10:35 pm above in the thread.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          And the cost of being a disciple is rejecting those that do not follow including family...that is a pathetic message. It is the message most all cult leaders deliver. My point stands, Awful stuff.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
    • Vic

      Amen.

      Nothing pleases God like Faith.

      April 9, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
      • alsarg72

        Ah yes. Gullibility, credulousness, a switched off mind. God loves them all.

        April 9, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
    • Madtown

      Jesus says to change you must look away from your sin and see Him!
      ---
      Interesting then, that God creates so many humans every day who will go their entire lives never hearing the name Jesus. What a shame.

      April 9, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        God has promised us that, if we seek Him with all our hearts, we will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13). He is not eager for anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9). “For there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:12-13). We do not know how God is dealing with people in lands yet unreached by the gospel, but from Scripture we can see that He will never condemn anyone unjustly, but will be faithful to reveal Himself to anyone who looks for His salvation.

        We also know that John saw in heaven “…a great mult.itude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands and crying out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’” (Revelation 7:9-10). Not only every nation but every tribe will be represented in heaven.

        April 9, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
        • Madtown

          if we seek Him with all our hearts, we will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13)
          ---
          You don't know what God has promised. Many people(your equals) all over the world honestly and earnestly seek God with all their hearts......and believe they find him. It's just that they have no concept of the existence of christianity, and have still never heard the name Jesus. Why are they wrong, and you right? Why in your mind, is there only 1 legit definition of God, and it just so happens to be the one you had available to you? Why quote biblical scripture, in regard to someone who has no idea the bible exists?

          April 9, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I never said they are wrong. And I am right. I don't feel that way at all.

          I don't believe in my mind there is only 1 legit definition of God. Is that what you imagine? That sounds like what a religion tries to say. Or an anti-theist that hates religion. Not what Jesus says.

          I wouldn't quote biblical scripture to someone who has no idea that the Bible exists. I would attempt to love them as best I could and help them see that God loves them, too.

          Thanks for sharing what you imagine?

          April 9, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
        • Madtown

          They already likely have a notion that God loves them. Why would you need to share it? How do you know better than they do, that God loves them?

          April 9, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
        • alsarg72

          We certainly do know that a book says x, y, & z. We have no reason to believe that that multiply translated from many unknown authors who just happened to make it into the final cut pieces of undoubted literature (of varying quality) contain anything more correct than people of their time could have written unaided by supernatural forces. We do know for certain however that much of it is inconsistent, immoral, sometimes silly, unscientific, and often very, very boring.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Madtown

          + They already likely have a notion that God loves them. Why would you need to share it?

          Love is a gift that is meant to be shared. I've been loved, so I love others in that same manner.

          + How do you know better than they do, that God loves them?

          I don't. I believe God loves them. And I know that really doesn't mean much unless I love them, too. Else I'm not acting in God's will.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • alsarg72

          Dalahäst, you are just making assertion after assertion. Try and back just one of them up with a reasoned argument.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I honestly don't feel the way Madtown imagines I do. What do I have to do to prove I'm not living in his imaginary world?

          April 9, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Religion is of this world. Jesus is dead.
      Religion tells us to do. Jesus is dead.
      Religion says our heart as a believer is evil still. Jesus is dead.
      Religion is all about the outward and seen. Jesus is dead.
      Religion is bondage. Jesus is dead!
      Religion is Satan’s tool. Jesus is dead!
      Etc.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Jesus lives.

        April 9, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Impossible.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
        • Madtown

          It's an interesting concept. We're told God "sacrificed" his only son. If Jesus lives, there can be no sacrifice?

          April 9, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          Madtown is quite correct. Even if we believe in magic, Jesus' "death" is a complete contradiction. If he appeared after he "died" then he obviously didn't die. Otherwise it's magic. Magic does not exist. Jesus may not have even existed.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is not impossible. I mean, without God it is impossible. But death is not the final outcome with God.

          God all powerful sacrifices his power on the cross and dies all powerless.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          He died. And was resurrected from death. Jesus rose because God injected enormous power and energy from outside the system. Something we can't do.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          God, who is omnipotent, could have saved his son, but didn't. Just like you'd let your son die if you had the chance to save him.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
        • colin31714

          "Dalahast, you said, "He died. And was resurrected from death. Jesus rose because God injected enormous power and energy from outside the system. Something we can't do."

          Holly sh.it you're an idiot. Next time I accuse you of believing in foolish Bronze Age nonsense, don't deny it. This is proof. So, did God use a laser gun, a neutron-photon beam or some other magical way to insert his "enormous power and energy" into Jesus. LOL. Fvckwit.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, I doubt that God used a laser gun, a neutron-photon beam or some other magical way to insert his "enormous power and energy" into Jesus.

          He operated in a manner that exceeds your understanding. You know, like how you are incapable of understanding how science actually works? Some people can demonstrate they can, but you can't?

          God can operate in a way that you can't understand. He isn't confined by your attempts at logic or infantile understandings.

          Just like I'm not defined by your opinions. And they actually reveal more about you. And you ignore or won't address the evidence that that actually reveals about you.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Concert,

          "Jesus may not have even existed."

          "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • anjisan63

          Ya know... When you start busting out the "bonafides" reference links found on YouTube, we poor followers of science and reason fall helplessly aside under this burning corncopia of evidentiary proofs. Please, don't put Ken Hamm on YouTube, he'll destroy all Atheists with his piercing, withering logic.

          April 10, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • alsarg72

      Nonsense.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
    • Concert in an Egg

      Dalahäst, why can't you let Jesus' dusty old bones rest in peace?

      April 9, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        You love it. It gives anti-theists something to talk about. Otherwise they would probably turn on and devour themselves.

        April 9, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • Concert in an Egg

          No, we would just go about our business living in this non-fictional world rather than arguing about yours. There will always be something to talk about. The game for example, or health care.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Some are the walking definition of urban dictionary's "internet atheist"

          "Angry atheist who trolls internet sites denouncing God, Christians and religion; Atheist internet troll who demonstrates a basic ignorance of reason; Atheist internet troll who is ignorant of science and logic while claiming strong adherence to the same; Atheist who contradicts themselves through poor reasoning, especially one who exhibits hypocrisy. "

          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=internet%20atheist

          Hold a man like Colin to his same standards and that is what you get!

          April 9, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
        • Tuscany Dream

          The Christian zealot has an awfully high opinion of himself...

          April 9, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No different than the anti-theist zealot.

          April 9, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • Tuscany Dream

          Don't know any anti-theists. Can you name some?

          April 10, 2014 at 12:07 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Christopher Hitchens. Richard Dawkins. Mao Zedong. Pol Pot. Joseph Stalin. Marshall Brain

          Any guy who spends time on religious blogs using derogatory terms like "Christard" and "sky fairy".

          Anyone who thinks this article makes fun of Christians, not hostile, irrational anti-theists:

          http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-church-full-of-brainwashed-idiots-feeds-town,34860/

          April 10, 2014 at 12:16 am |
    • Tuscany Dream

      Religion divides. You are full of caca.

      April 9, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
    • believerfred

      Dalahäst
      👍👍

      April 9, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
    • thinkmeguy

      If you had put "I believe" in front of every statement you made, I would have had some respect for what you say. Since there are many major religions in the world, you happen to be born into a place in the world where Christianity is what you learned to believe without any critical thinking. If you were really a thinker, you would know that you are an atheist, one religion removed. In other words, since you most likely will say the other major religions are something you do not believe in, that make you an atheist. Now, read what I have written here a few times, and maybe...just maybe, you can begin to think for yourself.

      April 10, 2014 at 12:22 am |
    • igaftr

      Thanks for a view into the mental gymnastics, and things you say to yourself to convince yourself you are right.

      April 10, 2014 at 11:46 am |
  20. somersetcace1

    You mean, when children aren't completely closed off to the world and have the ability to hear more than one possibility they tend to go with no religion? hmmm Go figure!

    April 9, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
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.