2010: The year in holy sightings

soundoff (73 Responses)

1. Jamie
   

   The Big Bang seems very similar to "Let There Be Light". Science does not preclude faith in creation, it just doesn't try to issue "how to" instructions beyond known and provable fact. My only problem with fundamentalists is the insistence that everyone else must be wrong while making a virtue of ignorance.

   October 7, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
2. Robert
   

   That face on the bean. That might be Obama's

   January 3, 2011 at 11:27 am |
3. Sad.
   

   I think it is so sad to see so many non-beleivers in a nation that was founded on God. I don't know how anyone can witness the birth of a child, a sun rise and sun set or the miracles that happen every day and not beleive in something greater than themselves. Really? You think that "science" is to explain for the unexplainable? I think it is an absurd thought. It's ok though because God will show us all one day and I pray that I am around to see it..

   January 3, 2011 at 9:14 am |
   • Meh
     

     Science has already explained the birth of a child, a "sun rise and sun set " and many of these so called miracles of yours that happen everyday. Sad is the perfect name for you.

     January 3, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
4. IkanThink
   

   – A concerned Christian

   To "a matter of FAITH"
   Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
   It is not about experience; Christianity is based on the Bible, the true record of the key things God has done for mankind. The most significant being His taking on the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7) and humbly dying in the place of a convicted sinner (me). He then arose from the grave, as only God can do, and gave the free gift of eternal life to all who will accept it. –

   Concerned, you need to debate with those for whom the "experience" is central to their acceptance of Jesus as their LAS, etc. because that "relationship" is key to those believers; I will gladly read and enjoy. Now, as to your assertions, two points:
   1) I did NOT do it (the SIN which is key and the transmission of which – perhaps via bodily fluids? – some amusingly have placed square on my shoulders); I have thousands of years of alibis, even if I accept that such a transgression requiring human sacrifice occurred. Perhaps satan framed me, but I was not even there, much less convicted. You are strangely willing to go with it, but that's your deal.
   2) The requirement that one must enter into this circular process of reading the word of god (did that, nada), HEARING the word of god (didn't happen), and the mandatory "reading it with an open heart/mind, etc" so god can work his magic is just not a productive or reasonable use of one's time. If the book itself will produce belief rather than experience, but only if one is in prayer/assumption of truth/correctness/validity/value AND looking for that jesus' feeling, well, then it seems belief comes first. But from where? Oh, reading the book, but that didn't help, and...oh...I think I'll go have a cookie.
   3) And all of this because YOU think this is the right book/God because (see above, repeat).

   See the problem?

   January 3, 2011 at 3:41 am |
   • IkanThink
     

     oh, the third point was a bonus, sorry, preplanning not my strong suit; thus, I have never planned to adopt a deity or religious system without evidence, and even then, circular thinking makes me nauseous.

     January 3, 2011 at 3:44 am |
5. Meh
   

   1:19 looks more like Obama than anything to me.

   January 2, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
6. Meh
   

   The video was pretty comical. Signs of God on a nut shell? Seriously?

   January 2, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
7. John E. McCue
   

   The problem with some arguments is that due to the weakness of language, it is possible that all religious posiitons are correct, but, language does not make it possible to state a position: "God is perfect;" God wants something";. is not a statement that can be correctly held.
   In theology all we can do is "believe", just as it is in science, we can not know.

   December 31, 2010 at 9:26 pm |
   • Gary
     

     yes religion is about belief....science is about facts based on experiments and observation......Science dose not prove there is no creator. Science dose poke many holes in all religious texts.

     January 2, 2011 at 10:01 am |
   • Let Us Prey
     

     Gary – Now this is what I'm talking about.... the proper spelling of 'dose' is 'does.' If you type it wrong once, it's a typo. But when you do it twice, it's ignorance. So, kiddo, if you want to be taken seriously, stay in school. Otherwise..

     Poeple will just giggel at yu.

     January 3, 2011 at 2:06 am |