home
RSS
December 30th, 2010
06:47 PM ET

2010: The year in holy sightings

Cast your ballot for your favorite sighting in comments.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Jesus

soundoff (73 Responses)
  1. Eric G.

    I think the peanut kind of looks more like Jason Voorhees. Maybe we should ask ourselves.......
    WWJD.......What Would Jason Do?

    December 31, 2010 at 4:42 pm |
  2. RightTurnClyde

    Most of these visions, besides being ludicrous, are apostasy (and pagan). It's not so bad when they can look at clouds or tea leaves or snow drifts and imagine they see a dog or buffalo or some normal thing, but when they start seeing God or Jesus or a Saint and then WANT IT to be a "message" .. that's crazy. What message? (be good, don't fight, stuff happens?) What message can a peanut-face give you? A screen door? If God wants to talk He can take over CNN or the Internet and get your attention. Otherwise have some sense and live a normal life ... as in MIDDLE of the BELL curve.

    December 31, 2010 at 4:01 pm |
    • William S. Fallowsworth

      Apostasy is the abandonment or renunciation of a religion, so that's not it. I think heresy is the term you meant.

      Now, as to the article, the face in the pistachio is definitely Charles Darwin, and any good Christian can understand the clear message: "Hey, you there, you lousy unbelievers, listen up! Darwin told the truth and I turned him into a fekkin pistachio! if you humans want to get uppity with your "facts" and your "science", I will turn you into a fekkin blueberry pop tart and have some of my fatso followers on the God-dietbook blog next door chew you up and process you in their bowels, turning you into the doo-doo that you are! For I am a loving God."

      December 31, 2010 at 5:13 pm |
  3. Bob

    > If we perform even a cursory review of the comments and assertions of the atheist/agnostic community on this blog, I think it's obvious that this isn't the case at all.

    I think you're confused with the concept of disprovintg the christian god vs. disproving god.

    There is a difference.

    > Psst.. Bob.. I think she knows this already.

    Actually, she's said that she can be a scientist and a believer at the same time, which is true. I'm saying that you can't claim to be applying reason and be a theist.

    December 31, 2010 at 3:03 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      She said: " Logic and religion don't coincide... belief in a Creator does not exclude science. " But more importantly, " I don't have to convince anyone of my belief; it is mine alone."

      Any concept of application of "God" is going to be applied to that particular community of believers in a form or fashion dictated by their social / historical context, i.e., Hindus, Christians, Muslims, etc. To separate their concepts of deity from a "universal" god is.. well.. just silly. God is god, relative to whatever denomination or sect is deifying him/her/it.

      We've had our conversation on this, so there's no need to reiterate any of that. But here's my point to you. If we all believe what we choose to believe based on our emotional need, cultural influence or empirical research – what's the point of criticizing one another?

      December 31, 2010 at 3:23 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @Let Us Prey: Excellent post! Happy New Year to you and yours, my friend.

      December 31, 2010 at 3:36 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      Back at ya', Eric G. And my best wishes to all for a prosperous, safe and fulfilling New Year.

      December 31, 2010 at 3:42 pm |
  4. Bob

    > That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying (or was saying as it's clear that discussion has been had and minds are set which is peachy keen by me) is that belief in a Creator does not exclude science. Nor does finding out about the world negate a Creator. Religion can be a frightening and dangerous thing. Jonestown much?

    That's not what we're saying. We're not saying a God doesn't exist. We're saying that belief in a creator without evidence is everything that science isn't. That's why they're mutually exclusive.

    Furthermore, science is the study of nature. God is supernatural. Ergo, it's outside the realm of science.

    I don't know what else to say. I've shown you that your beliefs are baseless and founded on your own emotions. I've shown you that you can in fact be wrong and I've pointed out that you have no constructive framework to base a reasonable conclusion that "There is a creator" because you've never seen a "creatorless universe" to draw differences from.

    The world of science is wild and exciting, with things that are currently outside our ideas and imagination. This doesn't mean something created it by default. Because if it does, the reason for God shrinks day after day of scientific research.

    The bubble shrinks, until it's gone.

    December 31, 2010 at 2:23 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Bob

      " We're not saying a God doesn't exist..."
      If we perform even a cursory review of the comments and assertions of the atheist/agnostic community on this blog, I think it's obvious that this isn't the case at all.

      " We're saying that belief in a creator without evidence is everything that science isn't. That's why they're mutually exclusive."
      Psst.. Bob.. I think she knows this already. And anyone that acknowledges the exclusivity of science and faith must, at some point, recognize that this is a futile debate.

      December 31, 2010 at 2:57 pm |
    • Gary

      Bob you are so correct....excellent posts....Let us prey and the others are too close minded and ignorant to get your point.

      January 2, 2011 at 9:59 am |
  5. Meredith

    @ Eric
    Accepted. Often stated one cannot have a rational discussion with one coming strictly from a place of feeling. Logic and religion don't coincide.
    That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying (or was saying as it's clear that discussion has been had and minds are set which is peachy keen by me) is that belief in a Creator does not exclude science. Nor does finding out about the world negate a Creator. Religion can be a frightening and dangerous thing. Jonestown much?
    I don't have to convince anyone of my belief; it is mine alone. I was merely attempting to explain it. I believe. It's enough for me. I dont subscribe to the dogma that I have to sign people up or kill those who disagree.

    December 31, 2010 at 1:33 pm |
  6. Meredith

    @ Eric,
    Belief itself is based on theory and feeling, which is why it is belief and not science. It is strictly opinion which does not mean it is ignorance.
    You chose to construe my statement in a manner convenient to you rather than the intent. I understand lightning and tectonics. I also think it's really cool how it all works. Dude. Clearer?

    December 31, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
    • Eric G.

      It is not the job of science, or of non-believers to prove that your god does not exist. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims. Using the theory of plate tectonics as an example. The theory works because the evidence is demonstrative. The theory does not require belief. It does not require a god. If you are inserting an unnecessary variable into the theory, it is because you do not grasp the evidence.

      I would also argue that belief not based in reason and logic is dangerous because belief shapes your actions. Actions should not be based on unsubstantiated belief. Action based on unsubstantiated belief is the reason people fly planes into buildings. Anyone can believe whatever they like. I will not patronize them by saying it is acceptable to base their actions on anything less than fact.

      December 31, 2010 at 1:17 pm |
    • Buenaventura Durruti

      It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something which does not exist.

      Be careful of "seeing God all around" you, Meredith. People did once claim that God created earthquakes and floods and other disasters are the wrath of God – you still hear that from people. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson thought that the ACLU, lesbians, gays, pagans, abortionists and feminists "had to take a lot of blame for" 9/11 disaster. This is a perfect example of "seeing God around me all the time" – they were also, and the interpetation was monsterous. Their seeing of God all around them are every bit as legitimate as yours.

      December 31, 2010 at 1:22 pm |
    • Buenaventura Durruti

      As God is not apparent in scientifically measurable areas (and he never has been), then what about in people's behavior? As most Christianity believes in a loving God who is personally involved in the events of your life, then Christians should be measurably more moral and decent. However, numerous extensive studies have shown that the more religious people are, the more likely they support torture, war, and the death penalty. They also get divorced more and are more likely to commit a major crime. All evidence is that religion is actually an impediment to morality. That speaks strongly against the theory that God acts favorably to those who believe in him. This also implies that if there is a God, it is not the Christian or Islamic god.

      Seeing God all around you is your fancy at work – everything you ascribe to God can be explained by science, human behavior and the normal operation of randomness (called coincidence). Choosing to see that as God instead of the normal operation of the world is a defiance of logic – when you do that, logic and faith are NOT co-existing. You have pushed out logic in favor of faith.

      That is why Freud called religion a delusional reconstruction of reality

      December 31, 2010 at 1:24 pm |
    • Bob

      > Belief itself is based on theory and feeling, which is why it is belief and not science. It is strictly opinion which does not mean it is ignorance.

      And everyone has opinons that are based on feelings. Some have feelings that are contrary to yours.

      Therefore one of the opinions is wrong...

      I think you know where I'm going with this.

      December 31, 2010 at 2:19 pm |
  7. Meredith

    Bob,
    It's not. I don't know why the laws of nature exist. I have no idea where they came from, how they work or why they seem to fit together so nicely. I look for the answer. I seek the solution.
    I also see that they do fit together pretty well. Until proven otherwise, it was fact indeed that the sun moved around the earth. Sure looked that way. When the truth came out, those people were debunked as morons, backwards and foolish.
    When the truth comes out if I am a moron, backwards and foolish then so be it. In the meantime, I choose to believe that there is a God. Have I evidence? Nope. Have you? Nope.
    Can I prove He exists conclusively? No. But neither can you disprove the negative. And so the cycle continues. And back to the original point: if I choose to believe and hurt none, so what? If I am wrong or Peter is wrong, one of us is wrong. It only matters if one of us deeply cares about being right at any cost.

    December 31, 2010 at 12:54 pm |
    • Bob

      > I also see that they do fit together pretty well. Until proven otherwise, it was fact indeed that the sun moved around the earth.

      Comparing the dark ages to modern time isn't valid. We now have a process that prevents such nonsense from entering the realm of science. We understand the concept that things need to be proven before accepted, not the other way around.

      > In the meantime, I choose to believe that there is a God. Have I evidence? Nope. Have you? Nope.

      But I'm not saying there isn't a God. I'm saying that it's foolish to believe in one based on nothing. Could there be a God? Yes. Could he/she/it created the universe? Absolutely. But it's one thing to say "I don't know" and another to say "I believe there is a God."

      Note, there is a difference between not believing in something and something not existing.

      I do not believe there is a God not because it'ss supernatural, not because it violates the laws of the universe as we know it nor because humans mistakes on assigning qualities to it.

      I do not believe in a God because it's the logical default. Not just for God, but for EVERYTHING.

      Ginseng curse cancer? I don't know until it has been shown to be. I won't believe it on someone's say so. There's a pink dragon in your closet? Don't believe it until I have video and dna samples.

      What I'm saying to you is that regardless of the source, anything that isn't demonstrably true isn't worth believing because you could be wrong. And if you accept an element of reality that's wrong, you're directly hindering yourself. You're chaining your mind.

      December 31, 2010 at 2:15 pm |
  8. Meredith

    Eric,
    If I could prove that God exists to non-believers, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And who is to say that I lack understanding of a theory?
    (sigh) Logic and faith ... They can co-exist and it always blows me away that strictly scientific types who consistently claim to be open-minded cannot accept that perhaps what you see around you was made? On purpose?

    December 31, 2010 at 12:04 pm |
    • Bob

      Back to my earlier point.

      Meredith: I see God in the natural order of the world.
      Peter: I do not see God in the natural order of the world.

      Both do not understand the nature of God. Both do not have evidence to support their position. Both are mutually exclusive, ergo, one must be wrong. If one must be wrong, then all others with the same level of evidence can be wrong as well.

      Why is it difficult to say "I don't know why the laws of nature exist" instead of "I see a designer"?

      December 31, 2010 at 12:21 pm |
    • Eric G.

      @Meredith: Who is to say that you lack understanding of a theory? Based on your following quote, you are saying you lack understanding of a theory.

      "Using the earthquake and lightning metaphor, it is not happenstance but science...tectonic plates and electrons. However, these things come together in ways that have a harmony and majesty that baffle me. I choose to believe that electron reactions and tectonic plate movements happen not due to a gigantic cosmic accident that...oops...happened thanks to physics (those wacky laws that were created by....?) but because there was a grand designer behind it all."

      All scientific theory is based on verifiable evidence. Please provide verifiable evidence of your creator. If you cannot provide evidence to support your theory, it is invalidated as opinion and an argument from ignorance.

      December 31, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
  9. Meredith

    @ Bob:
    I like you Bob! This may not at all matter to you but I appreciate both your points and the opportunity to engage in rational discussion. Good times!
    I may not be making myself clear which could be the consequence of not often discussing this topic and/or mobile device usage...limiting, you know.

    I'm not offended by your questions at all. I'm trying to say that as science finds answers and the wonders of the world are explained, this conversely makes it easier for me to believe in a divine presence, a guiding hand if you will. It is a subjective opinion that can't be validated because that is the difference between science and faith.
    Using the earthquake and lightning metaphor, it is not happenstance but science...tectonic plates and electrons. However, these things come together in ways that have a harmony and majesty that baffle me. I choose to believe that electron reactions and tectonic plate movements happen not due to a gigantic cosmic accident that...oops...happened thanks to physics (those wacky laws that were created by....?) but because there was a grand designer behind it all.
    Just because we can explain it does not destroy the mystery of the design or the designer. The more we find out, the cooler it all becomes; the bigger the wow factor is for me.

    As to the point of religion, it's a whole new can of worms. Religion comprises the set of rules to follow to worship God. Rules created by...well, depends really. Believing in God and practicing a religion are two different things and this is where most people jump off the train.
    Everyone says they are the only right one; this automatically makes all others wrong and their followers doomed to eternal damnation, right? Personally, I'm with you on this one. However, I think you missed my (very short) point on the difference between religion and belief.
    I can believe in God AND be a scientist by looking for answers and believing that somehow this is not just a big poof. This was designed and I'm finding out how it works.
    I can believe in God without practicing the tenets of a religion as well.

    December 31, 2010 at 11:33 am |
    • Eric G.

      Happy New Year! There is a logical problem with your approach. The problem is based in the fact that your self professed "opinion" did not require any discipline to attain it. Your lack of understanding of a particular theory and the demonstrative evidence that supports it does not logically allow you to insert opinion where your understanding ends. You can believe what you will, but for your positions on what your god is responsible for to be taken seriously, you will need to provide verifiable evidence that can withstand the scruitny that other theories have been subjected to.

      December 31, 2010 at 11:52 am |
    • Bob

      Again, why is there a wow factor? What are you comparing this universe to?

      How do you know this level of complexity isn't inherant in the universe naturally. What is the control?

      To make a subjective analysis of any sort of system as needing a designer, you'd have to know what a non-designed universe is. Ie, what qualities that has, why are these two different.

      Otherwise, it comes down to you subjectively setting the bar where you like and seeing it as such. If you don't mind me saying.

      December 31, 2010 at 12:16 pm |
    • Buenaventura Durruti

      Meredith, when you say "I can believe in God without practicing the tenets of a religion as well", do understand that you are commiting heresy, which for centuries lead to one's torture and/or execution. They would have tortured and executed us atheists/agnostics/seculars right along side of you, so welcome to the club. Even in modern times, Catholicism and many Protestant denominations would find that notion unacceptable, but the are more likely to get you to fix your thinking.

      December 31, 2010 at 1:43 pm |
  10. A Matter of FAITH

    God reveals Himself to us in such an intimately individual and personal way that you will never convince someone who has that personal experience with Him that He does not exist just as you will never convince a person who has not had that personal experience that He does exist. It takes faith to even believe that such an experience can happen. The amazing thing is that we all have faith....in something.

    December 31, 2010 at 11:26 am |
    • Bob

      I don't have faith in anything. Would you please tell me what I have faith in?

      December 31, 2010 at 11:30 am |
    • A Matter of FAITH

      Do you believe that someone loves you? or that I would respond to your question? or that you will get paid for the work you do? or that the grocery store will have that item you are shopping for?.....get it?

      December 31, 2010 at 11:33 am |
    • Bob

      > Do you believe that someone loves you?
      No. I think so based on their actions.

      > or that you will get paid for the work you do?
      No. I realize that I might not get paid and that I'll have to go to court.

      > or that the grocery store will have that item you are shopping for?
      Nope. They might be out. They might not. I go to find out and to purchase the item if available.

      > .....get it?
      You're equating things that are real and can be known through inductive reasoning as belief. It's not as I've shown you.

      I've retuned your first question so that it better reflects the true nature of the word belief.

      "Do you believe a random person that you've never met loves you?"

      December 31, 2010 at 12:09 pm |
    • 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.

      January 1, 2011 at 1:35 am |
  11. jacobTThompson

    My favorite sighting was seeing Jesus Christ himself walk into Glenn Becks house....I went around to the backyard, where I smelt lamb chops, and their conversation went something like this:

    http://stumpanatheist.com/my-gems/item/8-lamb-chops-glenn-and-sarah-paleck-have-jesus-for-dinner

    December 31, 2010 at 11:03 am |
  12. Meredith

    @ Bob:
    Thank you for bringing a point without bringing argument per se.
    I hear your statement. I would reply that there is still a broken window; this mystery still must be solved and science gets us there. Is there glass embedded in a brick or a chair? Brick or plastic parts in the room with the broken glass? Science explains the wonder of creation but doesn't remove the beauty of it. At least for me.
    Although it is true that many religions claim to be the only way and the only right one, therefore necessarily making all the others 'wrong', that's a point for blind faith in dogma and not one that I'm personally comfortable going into...not my bag really. Some are called to preach it and some are not. I am not.
    However, I would point out that all of the religions you mentioned have a commonality in one higher power. The rest of it is where they differ. Just as your hypothetical officers still have a broken window to solve for and must use science to get there.
    I have been told that it's strange to be so logical and have such faith but I'm ok with that. I'm also just fine with your observations and your choice to believe or not, who to believe or not, which 'religion' is 'right', and so forth and your point is quite well made.
    I'm going to have to stick to my guns on this one though. The more I learn about the way our universe and our bodies work the less I can believe that DNA replication, electromagnetic fields and black hole singularities are just happenstance. I happen to be able to reconcile that in my tiny human brain with a belief in a higher power.
    Religion and belief...there's a whole different discussion, yes?

    December 31, 2010 at 10:16 am |
    • Bob

      > The more I learn about the way our universe and our bodies work the less I can believe that DNA replication, electromagnetic fields and black hole singularities are just happenstance.

      Let's try something else. Let's go back 2000 years. Your argument would probably have looked like this...

      "The more I learn about the world, the less I think rain, lightning, earthquakes and fire is just happenstance."

      The point is, science is narrowing the gap of what we don't understand. Just because we don't understand it right now doesn't mean it's directly because of God or some directed force. We may never have the answers to some very important questions but the truly honest answer is "We don't know".

      Furthermore, I'd ask you how you come to the conclusion that things become less likely. What frame of reference are you using? Have you seen a universe that relies solely on happenstance if you deposit that this universe is directed by some force we don't understand? If not, isn't it just a subjective evaluation in which you set the boundaries based on an opinon that can't be validated?

      Not trying to be offensive, I just don't understand your reasoning behind your point.

      December 31, 2010 at 10:52 am |
    • Bob

      > Although it is true that many religions claim to be the only way and the only right one, therefore necessarily making all the others 'wrong',

      I think you only got half of the point. If I have a religion that says "I'm absolutely right" either I am and all other religions are wrong or I'm in fact wrong. Either way however, there exists a religion, based on faith and personal experience that is wrong. Ergo, all other religions with the same level of evidence could be wrong also.

      December 31, 2010 at 10:55 am |
    • HotAirAce

      And then you have religion (via books of silliness such as the inerrant word of god -the bible) making all kinds of claims along the lines of "A, B, C, D, E,...Z are true, and don't you dare question these truths 'cause our book says they're true." And then science comes along and says "Well we don't think A, B, C, F and G are really true because of these facts, but if you don't believe us, that's OK. Please critically review our thinking, experiments and conclusions and let us know where we went wrong or how we can improve." Repeat many times, each time reducing the volume of subjects religion is correct about. Eventually, a thinking person has to conclude that religion is not very credible. If the bible stopped at "There is a god." it would be very difficult to win an argument – one way or the other. But all the other bits just adds details that are impossible to sustain, unless you suspend your thinking before opening the cover.

      December 31, 2010 at 11:26 am |
    • Bob

      > Religion and belief...there's a whole different discussion, yes?

      I don't think so. People have been really good at trying to seperate religion from the day to day employ of logic and critical thinking, because, at least from my experience, religion fails to meet even the basic requirements of a reliable methodology.

      If God exists, he'd have to understand that the only way we can think about him is on our own terms. And the only reliable method we have to know about reality logic and demonstratable evidence. Lacking these, he must know, would mean that humans can (and have) come up with the most wild and silly explanations.

      Relying on faith as a methodology for getting peoplet to know him has dammned more people then if he had used a different route.

      December 31, 2010 at 11:29 am |
  13. Meredith

    @David Johnson and Thank You David Johnson
    I hear ya. I absolutely do want do see God. I want to find the science too; why can they not both exist? Does one necessarily have to cancel out the other? Just because science does not have an explanation does not mean I throw up my hands and claim divine powers...the sheer baffling nature of the science we have discovered -the stuff that makes us already say "wow" – is what leads me to divinity.
    If that makes me a non-thinker or a sheep, that's ok. If I quietly follow my beliefs, who do I hurt?
    Methinks by reading these few posts that the issue is more with radicals and fundies, who push their religion through discomfort, violence and outright being-in-your-face-ism. Not those like me, who appreciate that God gave you free will to choose Him or not.
    I DO thank scientists for digging deeper (quantum physics is some wacky shiz and my kids and I are working through a book a picked up on string theory...cool stuff); logic and faith don't have to be mutually exculsive.
    Anyway, I can agree to disagree on this point. Have a safe New Year everyone!

    December 31, 2010 at 8:58 am |
    • Bob

      > I hear ya. I absolutely do want do see God. I want to find the science too; why can they not both exist?

      They cannot both exist because they're different methodologies for thinking about the world.

      Science seeks to increase our understanding of reality through investigation, observation and deductive reasoning. It proves points and builds upon itself.

      Religion seens to interject an idealogoy of reality through faith and faith alone. It does not build upon itself and is to be taken statically regardless of what society does or discovers.

      For me, I try to have the best understanding of reality I can possibly have, because understanding reality allows me to operate better in the world and in my life.

      Let me give you a hypothetical situation. There are two officers who are investigating a burglary. They're specifically trying to figure out how the robber broke the window. There is nothing in the room with the window except the broken glass.

      Officer 1: He must have thrown a brick to shatter the window. There's a pile of bricks in the yard.
      Officer 2: He must have used a lawn chair, because there are lawn chairs in the yard.

      Both officers have mutually exclusive opinions. That is to say, if one is right, then the other is wrong. However, both officers have the same level of evidence, ie, the broken window. As such, if one can be wrong on the basis of the same level evidence, the other can be wrong as well. I mean, the robber could have used a pipe, a log, his fist or even a car door!

      Keep that in mind for a moment.

      We know that people all over the world have different faiths that are mutually exclusive. Islam is not compatible with Christianity, because they claim that Jesus didn't die. Jews don't consider Christ the son of god, so they both can't exist either. However, all faiths have people that claim that "God speaks to me" and/or "he's performed miracles for me". But more importantly, each rely faith, the belief without evidence.

      So, if Islam is right, Christianity is wrong. If Christianity is right, Judism is wrong and so is Islam.

      I trust you see my point. Given that it is impossible for all religions to be correct, then one must be wrong. If one is wrong, then all other religions with the same level of evidence could be wrong.

      However, just because they could be wrong doesn't mean they are wrong. All I'm saying is that I don't have faith in any religion because of this simple observation.

      December 31, 2010 at 9:37 am |
  14. jamie

    You don't have to believe, but there is no reason to make fun. Show some respect and compassion. I am not religious, but I am spiritual, and judgement is only a fear based response. You'll find out one day, one way or another but hate and judgement won't get you anywhere but deeper into your own despair. God won't judge you, but you might just have to judge yourself.

    December 31, 2010 at 6:53 am |
    • Bob

      > You don't have to believe, but there is no reason to make fun. Show some respect and compassion.

      For the matter of faith, I take the position that ideas are not to be respected. They are to be crticially analyzed and evaluated. I tolerate your faith. I don't respect you for it. No more then I respect someone who was taken for a telemarketer scam or someone who is gullible.

      > I am not religious, but I am spiritual, and judgement is only a fear based response.

      Judgement is a fear based response? ROFL. No it isn't. It's a conclusion made on available facts. I judge faith to be silly because it's not logical to believe in anything without evidence. Because you could be wrong.

      > You'll find out one day, one way or another but hate and judgement won't get you anywhere but deeper into your own despair

      You claim that people shouldn't judge you, but you feel it appropriate to term a group of people as "full of despair". You're a hypocrite sir.

      > God won't judge you, but you might just have to judge yourself.

      I do judge myself. I do look at what I believe and say "Why do I think this is true?" You say you're spiritual, I think you could use a bit of self reflection and judgement.

      December 31, 2010 at 7:42 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Bob

      You said: "For the matter of faith, I take the position that ideas are not to be respected. They are to be crticially analyzed and evaluated. I tolerate your faith. I don't respect you for it. No more then I respect someone who was taken for a telemarketer scam or someone who is gullible."

      Well said! I totally agree. Have a good New Year!

      Cheers!

      December 31, 2010 at 8:55 am |
    • A concerned Christian

      Hey Bob, I want you to know that Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved ( check John 3:17) whether or not you can reason the love of God for a dying, sin-cursed world is irrelevant. His love is true; even as His existence is true, it is not even debatable.
      Bob, I've never seen you, I've never met you, though I have read your blog, I refuse to believe you exist until I have DNA evidence and a picture identification.

      January 1, 2011 at 1:22 am |
  15. The_Mick

    When I was in Jerusalem, our guide took us to a Christian Church very close to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher because it had one of the oldest Christian paintings. Jesus and the Apostles were portrayed wearing hats and with ringlets of hair hanging down on each side of their head, much like today's Hasidic Jews. Our Israeli guide pointed out that the painting was more realistic of Jesus's time than the the Westernized, modernized versions we see. Consequently, one wonders who the impostors are that appear in the "religious appearances" that "look like" our unrealistic visual concepts of Jesus and Mary or, I should look say, like those who actually called themselves "Yeshua" and "Miriam" and surely had Semitic features, hair color, etc.

    December 31, 2010 at 3:52 am |
    • David Johnson

      @The_Mick

      I have seen several pictures of Jesus. His hair color ranged from brown to blonde. His eyes were brown or blue. HIs skin color was always white.

      Never have I seen a picture of Jesus with earlocks or a hat. That is just plain wrong. A trick of the devil!

      Our pictures of Jesus in the West, are inspired by god.

      I know my Jesus was blonde with blue eyes. I can feel it in my heart.

      Cheers!

      December 31, 2010 at 7:40 am |
    • William S. Fallowsworth

      No, I have personally seen Jesus quite a lot, and he definitely has black hair, brownish skin, and is kinda short. He speaks somewhat haltingly, and sometimes talks in a language that I do not understand. He pronounces his name strangely, as "Hay-sus", and I must say that the resurrected Son of God does a great job on my gardening.

      December 31, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @William S. Fallowsworth

      Dude! That was not right! It was funny, but it just wasn't right!

      Cheers!

      December 31, 2010 at 9:02 pm |
  16. Meredith

    I see God around me all the time. I can't figure out those who honestly believe that the great diversity of life around us is the result of an accident. Although science explains lots of it, there's so much we still don't know and can't figure out.
    And really, is it necessary to be ugly about it? If it makes people feel better in stressful times, so be it. I live mine and let them live theirs. Who am I to tell them they're wrong or insane?

    December 30, 2010 at 11:02 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Meredith

      You said: "I see God around me all the time. I can't figure out those who honestly believe that the great diversity of life around us is the result of an accident."

      You see god, because you are looking for him, and want to "see" Him. A lot of this feeling of seeing god, is the result of not understanding whatever you are looking at. Once you have an idea of how something actually occurs, the supernatural part fades away.

      Just because there are things science cannot explain today, does not mean "god did it". There was a time, when man did not understand why it rained, or why the sun crossed the sky. Early man attributed these occurrences to the god(s). They were wrong.

      The initial "spark" of life was probably the result of chance. Once this initial spark occurred, evolution explains the diversity of organisms on earth. There is much evidence for evolution. There is none for creation.

      Start the New Year, by thinking!

      Cheers!

      December 31, 2010 at 7:28 am |
    • Thank you David Johnson!

      Meredith,
      We can explain alot, you and your type don't always care to hear the answer. Life is not an accident, its a natural process. And out of life, religion was created. So, thank a scientist! Happy, Safe New Year all!

      December 31, 2010 at 7:54 am |
    • A concerned Christian

      I would like to reply to "David Johnson." it is not true that all who believe in God are uninformed, and it is also an untruth that evolution is science.
      First, evolution is not a theory, it is a model. Evolution is not science because it is not empirical, in that, it is not observable, testable, or repeatable. It is not science because is it extrapolation. It is not science because it holds to certain falsehoods like spontaneous generation. I recall a certain law, I repeat, law of nature, the third law of thermodynamics that states that life can only come from life. life has never, and will never, accidentally occur. Evolution is against empirical science.
      However, Creation is not against empirical science. God created science, and commanded man to subdue the earth (science). My faith is not blind, for it has an object, Jesus Christ. My faith is not illogical, for it is in harmony with real science. My faith is not unscientific, for it has not been proven wrong.
      Evolution is blind, for you cannot prove what you cannot observe. Evolution is illogical, for observable science contradicts it. Evolution is unscientific, for there is no evidence to support it, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
      just something to think about.

      January 1, 2011 at 1:04 am |
  17. Eric G.

    @Let Us Prey: As a Wolverine, at this point, I would trade a NBA trophy for the Cavs, a Superbowl win each for the Browns and Bengals and World Series rings for the Indians and Reds in exchange for a banner Maze and Blue day in the Horseshoe.

    December 30, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Eric G.

      Happy New Year my friend! May you see a thousand more!

      Happy New Year to all my atheist friends and to my fundies, who god put on this earth to entertain me.

      Cheers to all!

      December 30, 2010 at 8:54 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ Eric G.

      Not much hope for you there.... but the Buckeyes are finding new and creative ways of 'stepping in it' lately. So you never know. Then again, you still have Rodriguez, right? Nuff' said.

      December 30, 2010 at 9:05 pm |
  18. The Walrus was Jeebus

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86s2mgAd3kg

    December 30, 2010 at 8:31 pm |
  19. Buenaventura Durruti

    From the Book of Absurdities, 12:42-58: "And the Lord sayeth, Ye who shall find my image in a lima bean, a steamy dog doo-doo, or a misshapen corn flake, ye are truly my chosen ones, better than all those others. Do not let the heathen unbelievers dissuade you from your righteousness; Burn them as witches or hack them to small pieces in crusades in my really glorious name, for all that do not kowtow quivering in absolute obedience to my really great greatness are doomed for eternity, and thus it be that you may as well have some fun oppressing and torturing and murdering them now, as is the way with my followers.

    "And Ye though no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, subject them to the Spanish Inquisition!"

    December 30, 2010 at 7:45 pm |
    • Meredith

      Not that! Their chief weapon is surprise...and fear.

      December 30, 2010 at 11:05 pm |
    • A concerned Christian

      "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you," Matthew 5:44.
      The Crusades and Spanish inquisition were not at all biblical. They were against everything Jesus commanded, and those who participated will stand before God and be judged for it. The true message of the Bible is this: Christ died to save a world of sinners, he defeated death by rising bodily from the grave, and that any who would be forgiven of their sin only need to believe in that, and ask for forgiveness!
      by the by... forget the stupid "nut shell images" I challenge anyone to show me BIBLICALLY how these nuts can show Jesus' face. if you want a sign look to Christ's resurrection, that is the greatest sign your going to find.

      January 1, 2011 at 12:41 am |
  20. David Johnson

    Truly you believers are insane.

    Why not start the New Year, with a resolution to get off the god?

    Roll around and bay at the moon on New Year's Eve and awaken the next day, free from the silly!

    Good luck my fundies!

    December 30, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Now David, you know that I tend to agree with you on these matters, but really, these are about the only bits of physical evidence the believers have for the existence of their tribal gods and we should leave these good folks to their delusions. Happy New Year to all!!

      December 30, 2010 at 7:35 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      All these signs from God are in Ohio, the great state of the damned sports teams. You'd think that at least one team could win. Browns, Bengals, Reds, Indians and the Cavaliers minus LeBron. Come on already... I guess we first need to see Jesus on a muddy football or Mary in the wrinkles of a catcher's glove. I'm so very sad.... my teams all suck.

      December 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm |
    • A concerned Christian

      The Bible never says that there will be visible signs of "Spirit activity" in nut shells and rocks. in fact, Mat 12:39 says "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas."
      this is the sign of Jonah: Christ Died, according to the Scriptures, He was buried and he rose again according to the Scriptures. Why? so that everyone that has sinned (aka. everyone, myself included) can be forgiven; if they will believe.

      January 1, 2011 at 12:29 am |
    • A concerned Christian

      Ah, I just replied to one of your posts. you may want to check it out...

      January 1, 2011 at 1:05 am |
1 2
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.