home
RSS
January 22nd, 2011
10:09 PM ET

Sargent Shriver's 'love affair with God'

At Saturday's funeral for Sargent Shriver, son Mark said his father went to Catholic mass daily - even when on the road - and that Shriver's deep religious faith drove his work.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Leaders • Politics

soundoff (123 Responses)
  1. Reality

    Some need faith. Others rely on common sense and reading outside the bible box.

    January 24, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • gerald

      The two are not mutually exclusive except in the minds of those too proud to try to understand.

      January 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
    • Reality

      Faith in common sense and reading outside the bible box:

      For those who do not want to peruse a rather short synopsis of the Resurrection Con, a shorter version:

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

      "Heaven is a Spirit state" as per JPII and Aquinas i.e. there can be no bodies. i.e. there was and never will be any physical resurrection/ascension of human bodies."

      And is it not ironical that JPII along with Aquinas are the ones who put meaning to the words "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless."

      January 24, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
    • TheRationale

      @gerald
      No, not really. Faith is the belief in something via the suspension of reason. It's rather mutually exclusive with reason. It seems like the two are mutually compatible only in the mind of someone who doesn't understand.

      January 24, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
    • gerald

      Or is it you that does not understand? Scientifically prove that you do. 🙂 . Is it irrational to claim that there are things which we do not and cannot understand? Is there a finite group of processes and scientific facts which are all understandable and provable by a rational man? Such a position seems foolish to me. Prove to me that there are not infinite processes and scientific facts by which rationality can grasp all? I highly doudt you can. In fact I know you can't. Seems like an argument for God. Gee rationality. It takes intelligent to comprehend the complexity and abundance of processes and scientific facts far beyond human ability. Yet you claim no such intelligence exists. That seems irrational to me.

      January 24, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      "reading outside the Bible box"? Scripture alone, or sola scriptura, is a Protestant argument. Tradition and good works go hand in hand with The Bible. Tradition was all that existed until St. Jerome (around 420 AD)translated and bound the Apostles letters into what is now called the Bible. What did Christians do before that? If you have Faith, then you will most likely do good works without thinking about it. Where does your common sense come from? Did you learn it or was it there to begin with? I submit it was there to begin with, which is called the Natural Law. The Author of that Law is called God. Does He exist? My stock answer is Bumblebees. Aerodynamically impossible for them to fly but they insist on doing so anyway.

      January 24, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
  2. CW

    @ Steve(the real one),

    Good posts my man....Glad to see someone else put in some writting for the lost souls of this world.

    Let me show you a few more that need Christ,
    REALITY,
    Peace2All,
    Doc Vestibule,
    NL

    These are just to name a few where I've seen that they really need faith. They have to make the choice....its their eter-'nity that is at stake.

    January 24, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Fideistic faith is not a virtue.
      Belief without a shred of proof is delusion.

      "The great trouble with religion — any religion — is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak uncertainty of reason — but one cannot have both."

      January 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • gerald

      Where is your shred of proof for between species evolution? Where is your shred of proof for the creation of RNA, Amino Acids, proteins, and then the biological leap to life ever happening other than that life is here and requires those things. You have no proof of how life originated. Therefore our "hypothesis" that there is a God is at least as good as yours. The fact is that any evidence we provide you reject. It's doa.

      January 24, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      Thanks CW,

      I will say the I believe the folks you mention are good folks who hold strong beliefs or non beliefs as they would say. I also know that good is not enough! Christ forced Himself on no one and neither can I force Christ on anyone. So, all I can do to exchange ideas and thoughts without argument, name calling, or belittling although some may interpret my very dry sense of humor as such, hopefully not! I believe when we share God's word, it will accomplish it's purpose and will not return to Him empty. It is not waste of time!

      January 24, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @gerald
      What do you mean by "between species evolution"?
      Is that like Kirk Cameron demanding someone show him a "crocoduck"? Statements like that demonstrate an ignorance of evolutionary theory.
      Darwinian evolution makes no claims as to explaining abiogenesis. That is admitedly still a mystery – but to fill in a gap in knowledge with "God did it" is intellectual apathy. If every member of the human race simply said "God did it", our species' development would come to a grinding halt.
      I do have faith in one thing – that while many things are unknown, nothing is ultimately unknowable.
      It took a long time to realize that the Earth is not the centre of teh universe – and another few hundred years for religionsists to admit that Copernicus had a point.

      By it's very definition, faith (and specifically fideism) rejects testable, observable, tangible evidence which has been acc.umlated through meticulously doc.umented, repeatable processes.
      What evidence that isn't simply a "gut-feeling", unverifiable by anyone else, can faith provide?

      January 24, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
    • gerald

      " Is that like Kirk Cameron demanding someone show him a "crocoduck"? Statements like that demonstrate an ignorance of evolutionary theory."

      No, what is only clearly demonstrated here is your wanting to broad brush me in with KirK Cameron and other strict creationists (of which I am not) in a prejudicial manner. I neither embrace nor reject evolutoin as you have aptly stated it to be. A theory.....Though for many it is a religion because there are things that as you have aptly stated lack proof. And I can agree that, simply because we don't understand them now does not prove they don't occur. From a Catholic frame of reference I don't find evolution to be necessarily contradictory to scripture, though neither do I find strict creationism to be. An all powerful God could do it either way, an eternal God has time to pass thinking how best to do it and then like a fine painter taking his time with every stroke. I also think that when those of the Church of evolution start talking they limit themselves to that one process and have a tunnel vision toward it that may prevent other processes that fill the wholes in being discovered. By the way Copernicus was actually supported by at least one earlier pope FYI. Faith does not reject testable evidence. Such a claim is ridiculous. That photosynthesis occurs and knowing the science of it does not in any way make it not a wonder that was imagined and designed by God. Of course there is the problem of the natural instability of the process and what gave rise to it in the first place. Faith just allows us to see beyond scientific fact. If faith and science conflict either ones theology or ones science is in error. I can certainly agree that there have been those in religion and those in science who have had such issues. Can you?

      January 24, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
    • gerald

      By the way I am in now way trying to disprove science as some of your statements against me seem to imply. It is equally intellectually lazy to claim that we are just "filling in the gaps" when we say "God did it". It is intellectually lazy to say that because we understand a process it is no less wonderous. The very fact that there are processes implies design rather than, accident, happenstance, and chance. Exactly the argument of the watch implying a watchmaker. I think if you go to Peter Kreefts website you will find him to be less intellectually lazy than Kirk Cameron. Just do a google.

      January 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Gerald
      I did jump to the conclusion that you were a baptist and for that I apologize.
      The Catholic church has been blessed with two scientifically progressive Popes (JP and Pius) who did much to pull the faith out of the middle ages.
      I took over 300 years, but in 1992 JPII finally exonerated Galileo for his heretical heliocentrism. It was John Paul II who also made startling statements (for the devout anyways) admitting the validity of evolutionary theory.
      I agree with you that understanding a process like photosynthesis doesn't make it any less wonderous. More so, in fact!
      But the sense of awe at the majesty of the natural world we feel doesn't connote the existence of a creator for me. That feeling is akin to Spinoza or Einstein's pantheistic conception of God as opposed to an Abrahamic watch-maker God.

      And while you may not feel as though your faith rejects objective evidence, there are many brands of faith who seem to revel in their ignorance, like the Young Earth crowd...

      "If faith and science conflict either ones theology or ones science is in error." On this I agree unreservedly! I will point out, however, that religious dogma leaves no room for self-correction whereas the scientific process is all about constant refinement, to the point of rejecting postulates outright should they prove untenable.

      That being said, I'm still a bit fuzzy on what you mean by "between species evolution".

      January 25, 2011 at 8:22 am |
    • gerald

      Copernics's theories were not condemned ever by the Church. Galileo's version was as it had both scientific and theological errors (errors that the Church agrees are still in error today). The whole theory was never condemned. Just Gallileo's version. For a discussion of his theological errors you can look at a copy of Benedict XVI's book, "truth and tolerance". If it were just the theory of heliocentrim that was condemned and it had just recently been lifted there would have been a whole lot more excommunications. Galileo's science had errors as well.

      Mostly what I find in people's analysis of the Galileo situation is those who judge it look at it through a non-catholic lens with the incorrect idea that if someone's theories are condemned then all aspects of that theory are considered incorrect by the Church and condemned. This is not the case. Again, there were both Theological and scientific errors in his theories that even today would be recognized as such.

      Certainly if one looks at each individual process or even all of the processes that we know of together you might not come to the Abrahamaic conclusions of God. If that were all we had pantheism might seem a logical ending point. Certainly there is something required beyond science but science to me points one in the direction. Scripture affirms this when it says "the heavens cry out to the glory of God" and other passages. In my mind the whole concert of creation including the extreme accuracy of the universe, the processes of physics and chemisty, life, etc. etc. taken from a broad perspective implies an intelligence. It does not tell us who that intelligence is specifically.

      As to all the different denominations it does not bother me that types like Mr. Cameron are doing their little rants. They are Johnny come lately Christians spawned by the reformation and a false doctrine called sola scriptura that forces them in to a strict creationist theology. One can look back in history, such as the writings of Augustine and see that Catholicism has not forced it's members to hold strict creationist views. Catholicism traces back to Christ and the Apostles so it is legitimately in my view the only Christian religion that has a leg to stand on. The others have varying degrees of truth in them.

      Again, with regard to macro-evolution, which is what I mean, there has not been any real proof of the concept. Incrementalism is one theory I have heard as to why it is disguised. My intent is not to discredit macro-evolution, mearly to keep it where it belongs currently. In the realm of theory. If someone proves macro-evolution my faith will not change because creation is still a wonder that takes intelligence in my view.

      Don't know if I covered everything you wanted me to discuss or not.

      January 25, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • gerald

      "On this I agree unreservedly! I will point out, however, that religious dogma leaves no room for self-correction whereas the scientific process is all about constant refinement, to the point of rejecting postulates outright should they prove untenable."

      As I said above heliocentrism was never condemned by the Church. Only Gallileo's version of it and only parts of his theories. Others who wrote and spoke about the topic in the years that followed did not raise the slightest peep from the Church.

      January 25, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
  3. gerald

    More answers for David:

    That you can't reconcile suffering with a loving God, does not mean that such a reconciliation does not exist and that you have proven anything. The answers are in scripture but if you reject scriptures answers you are left with coming to the conclusions you do. I accept scriptures answers about the fall of man, thus causing disease and deformity of the genetics, etc. etc. I can see that overeating causes diabetes and heart disease just as God's laws show that there will be ill effects from it. That promiscuity leads to all kinds of diseases where monogamy makes such disease rare. There is evidence that such activities also alter our genetics and pass along behaiviors as well that increase the suffering in our children. God's fault? Hardly.

    I know of sufferings in my life that have allowed me to grow as a person and have seen when people have everything handed to them on a platter and don't really have to "suffer" for it they do not appreciate it and lack charity toward others. Should God remove such suffering in light of this? Hardly. I have seen the love of people poor out for people who suffer. Should God prevent this increase in love? You would have him do so.

    You would have God remove evil from the world. Force all men to love him and take away their free will. You would make him in to a kidnapper and a rapist who does not let his creation have their freedom. I have gone by ant wars with my kids. Their tendency at times has been to stomp all the ants. I prevent them from doing so.

    Gerald

    January 24, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • gerald

      Dave Johnson has left the thread.

      January 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Gerald

      I am posting from work. I am multi_tasking. Which also explains why I sometimes don't proof read as I should.

      I will answer your posts as time permits.

      Cheers!

      January 26, 2011 at 10:40 am |
    • David Johnson

      @gerald

      You said: "That you can't reconcile suffering with a loving God, does not mean that such a reconciliation does not exist..."

      Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. So god created disease. He constructed the tick and the flea, and the tape worm and the mosquito. He caused the animals to prey on one another. God did this to teach...what lesson, to the subsequent generations? The desire for knowledge is evil? Just read your bible and believe? What lesson?

      But you say man did it to ourselves. Really? Did these things spontaneously generate as the fruit was chewed? So when a person is placed under the lash or upon the rack, he brought it upon himself? No matter how hideous the penalty, the person applying the punishment bears no guilt? Did no one fashion the lash or devise the rack?

      So you are contending that God allows some evil because it builds positive character in the victims or in others which outweighs the negative value of the evil itself (e.g., John Hick).

      I don't think "we" created the classroom of pain. God would have had to create it. This is like the fundie claim, that god doesn't send you to hell, you send yourself to hell. Make no mistake. God sends people to hell.

      If God exists, we must have evidence that all of the evils we see are means to a higher purpose. All the pain and suffering should have the purpose of teaching. But even fundies admit there is no evidence. That is why they must resort to talking about the mysterious ways in which God works. There's no evidence at all, that 300 to 500 million people dying from Smallpox in the 20th century, is for a greater good.

      Even if, as you say, evil and suffering is a teaching tool, God would only allow as much evil or suffering as is absolutely necessary in order to achieve a greater purpose. Any suffering above that necessary to learn, would be overkill. But when we look at the world around us, we find prevalent instances of apparently gratuitous evil—pointless suffering from which no greater purpose seems to result.

      As William Rowe points out, when a fawn burns to death in a forest fire and no human being ever knows about it, this apparently unnecessary evil does nothing to build the character of human beings. It is just suffering.

      Again I ask, how would this scenario look different if there was no god? Would there be suffering for no apparent reason? Would there be more evil than could ever be necessary to preserve either free will or for soul making?

      The answer once again, is: The scenario would look exactly the same.

      If there is no difference between god and no god, then what good is god? Why believe in god?

      Cheers!

      January 26, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • gerald

      Good questions Dave. I will respond later today. Stay tuned.

      January 27, 2011 at 8:27 am |
    • gerald

      Dave,

      First of all I am not trying to disprove evolution. Certainly not micro-evolution. Did God create disease? Well that is a good question. He created microbes, that can mutate and when we sin those mutations can affect us because our bodies are weakened. Is this God's fault? No. I don't believe that all disease came about the instant that God created the world and everything in it. In fact I don't believe in young earth/6 day creationism. So do stop broad brushing.

      January 28, 2011 at 9:50 am |
  4. Muneef

    Who is your Qareen?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qareen

    January 24, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
    • Muneef

      What is Qareen?

      http://www.ilmfruits.com/qareen

      January 24, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
  5. CW

    @ David Johnson,

    You can say all day that there is no God....you won't convince me or any other true believer. Just like I won't convince you that there is a God. Rest assured though.....on judgement day....there will be a lot of non believers, atheist, and the like with bulging eyes....but it will be too late.

    @ Steve(the real one),

    You can spread the good news but those that have a closed mind will not listen.....they lack the faith needed to believe.

    January 24, 2011 at 11:31 am |
    • Steve the real one

      True CW, even the apostles shook the dust from their sandals and moved on!

      January 24, 2011 at 11:33 am |
    • David Johnson

      @CW

      You said: "You can say all day that there is no God....you won't convince me or any other true believer. "

      The difference is, I don't just say there is no god. I give you evidence that I am right. You believers are the ones who go about proclaiming there is a god, and offer...nothing.

      You cover your ears and bleat in unison, until the evidence against your god is removed.

      There is no god, CW. No soul. No Heaven. No Hell. Don't spend the only life you will ever have on your knees.

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      David Johnson,

      You have given no evidence against God! Sorry!

      January 24, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
    • gerald

      We speak the truth knowing that even in the most obstinate hearts Jesus is knocking at their door. We seek immediate gratification, knowing that our words changed hearts. We rarely get this "comfort". But Paul said "I planted, apollos watered, but the Lord made it grow". We plant a seed. 20 years from now the conditions may be right for it to grow. C.S. Lewis was an atheist at one point in his life. Good that Chesterton and Tolkien didn't give up on him.

      January 24, 2011 at 1:03 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      Gerald,

      Is this the Gerald from the Angelican story? if so, greetings. Gerald I hope you are well! Even if not the same Gerald my greeting stands!

      January 24, 2011 at 1:09 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Steve the real one

      Then refute my arguments against there being a god. See my very first post to Let Us Prey.

      Pray to your god to give you wisdom to refute me. I will look foolish indeed. Oooo! I fear the lord. NOT.

      God is no more real than Santa Claus.

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • gerald

      gerald

      David,

      That an answer hasn't been given for your "Proofs" does not mean one does not exist and that you have proven anything, except in your own mind. What is truly an imperfection in mankind can easily be explained by the doctrine of original sin. What is less then optimal does not imply imperfection. A container that holds a cup of water is not imperfect because it does not hold a million gallons. It is designed for what is needed. I don't see anything as it is designed in humans that is insufficient for our needs. The very improbablility of the existence of life on this planet, i.e. the perfection of our orbit and distance from the sun and gravity, etc. etc., the difficulty of amino acids ever coming to be, let a lone the more complex proteins necessary for life, actually becoming life, another biological leap in a chain of about 40 biological leaps, of which there are about 10 million bilogical leaps to get to a human, is equally if not more so a proof for the existence of God than your "proofs" to the contrary that show lack of understanding of Christianity and a blind eye toward any possibility that your own logic does not have all the data needed to make your claims hold water.

      God bless you.

      January 24, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
    • gerald

      That individual men try to create there own "gods" in a fashion they can wrap their own minds around, thus creating thousands of denominations and religions, just as there are different brands and excuses for atheism, is no proof of the non-existence of God. It only shows our lack of humility in thinking we have it all figured out like you think your arguments are the final word, even though if you go online and search for them you will see that you have not come up with any of them, but only take what others have come up with and call it your own, accepting as "truth" only what you mind will allow to be the truth (to probably that same degree that we do) and not looking at the arguments against these things with any sincere study.

      January 24, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
    • gerald

      One in the same. Greetings to you as well. You and Bella have been in my prayers of late. I hope I have been in yours. If not please add me to your list.

      Gerald

      January 24, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      Gerald, I have been praying and will continue to do so! Thank you for your prayers, Brother!

      January 24, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      David Johnson
      @Steve the real one
      Then refute my arguments against there being a god. See my very first post to Let Us Prey. Pray to your god to give you wisdom to refute me. I will look foolish indeed. Oooo! I fear the lord. NOT. God is no more real than Santa Claus.
      Cheers!
      ---------–
      I see your challenge David and as God will not force Himself on ANYONE to include you or me, I will pray for wisdom, not to refute you but because I need it! So in short, we can go on and on about this and you will not change and I can assure I WILL NOT! Thank you for asking though! It is more appropriate to say your closing like like this:

      God is no more real IN MY (DAVD JOHNSON'S) LIFE than Santa Claus. Why because HE is very much real in my (Steve's) life!

      January 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • Evolved DNA

      CW.. how would you handle a person who came up to you and said they are Jesus.. and you have to accept that on faith..I will give you no signs as this is a true test of your faith, if you do not you will not get into heaven.. given a real world scenario I bet you would want some evidence?

      January 24, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      David Johnson,
      You may not fear the Lord, but why not start with ‘fear of your Mother’….are you willing to break her heart should she ever read your posts?

      January 25, 2011 at 11:14 am |
    • David Johnson

      @CatholicMom

      You often bring up my mother. I thought was a sort of a joke. I guess not.

      My mother is well aware of my position on the existence of god. I am not ashamed of my beliefs, CM.

      My daughter, whom I allowed to form her own opinion, has also come to the conclusion that god exists only in people's imagination. Why mention this? Because you always assume parents are religious nuts, crying for their children's lack of faith. It just ain't necessarily so.

      Cheers!

      January 26, 2011 at 10:36 am |
    • David Johnson

      @gerald

      You said: "The very improbablility of the existence of life on this planet, i.e. the perfection of our orbit and distance from the sun and gravity, etc. etc."

      You said: "the difficulty of amino acids ever coming to be, let a lone the more complex proteins necessary for life, actually becoming life

      1.The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
      2.The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
      3.The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
      4.The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
      Sources:
      Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions. Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations.

      Once life began, evolution explains all the diversity of organisms. The Creation story is revealed to be stinking rubbish in light of the transitional fossils, DNA evidence, Geological Column, Vestigial organs, Age of the earth and the universe.

      If this is not so, then explain how, if god created all the organisms one time, in their present form, would there be transitional fossils? There shouldn't be any. Any fossils of a horse, should look exactly like the horse of today.

      Cheers!

      All of your talk is just Creationist propaganda. Like a roach, it runs for cover when light is shined upon it.

      January 26, 2011 at 11:17 am |
    • David Johnson

      You said: "The very improbablility of the existence of life on this planet, i.e. the perfection of our orbit and distance from the sun and gravity, etc. etc."

      Most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in:

      10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate.

      The number of planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in:

      10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion!

      If the gravity, temperature, etc. are not compatible with life as we know it, it does not preclude some other form.

      If our planet was not in the Goldilocks zone etc. we simply would not be here. The fact that we are here, means that our planet is favorable to us. That is all. No god needed. It is random chance.
      Source: THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS by Keith Mayes

      No God Needed!

      Cheers!

      January 26, 2011 at 11:58 am |
  6. HeavenSent

    Correction Reality, that statement should be .... and on and on and on and on goes the fools-driven drivel !!!!!

    January 24, 2011 at 11:27 am |
  7. Muneef

     "There is a fine line between genius and insanity"

    All through history of mankind but if we will be starting by Noah when was calling upon his people as a reminder and a warner as to become into belief and repent,stop the wrong doings..those with vast interest either called him a madman or a bewitched man,they have laughed at him and only the poorest of them believed in him and followed.
    Again they laughed at him when he warned that earth would drown in waters upon the eruption of the volcano and warned that waters would be coming from all over, from unerground,over ground and pouring from the skies and that there would be no salvation for the disbelievers from drowning and that only who had  believed and had faith in the messenger would see salvation provided that they worked hard with him for it to save their lives after having saved their souls in believing the man of God the prophet and Messenger.
    Basis their  belief they had planted the right trees.served it,trained it,harvested it and made the gaint ark to carry believers and followers with all their foods,waters,animal feed and fodder. 
    He was inspired to take from each pair of animals (male and female) to take Two pairs of each pair (Domesticated animals and Wild animals) which could have been used as tools,transport or as defense ?! 
    Any way when the promised Date and Hour came after few signs for those some to be ready on the Ark for when water came pouring heavily were the Ark and Waters exceeded the highest peaks of mountains on the whole of earth as nothing was supposed to remain alive other than those saved by the Ark.. It was the day when all sweet,bore and salty waters driven by heavy winds has united forces against mankind and all creatures on earth??

    The Question here is who to blame God, prophets,messengers,
    or to blame those wrong doers for their acts that are attracting adverse reactions that they could have been saved from by repentance and work hard towards salvation ones self,followers,believers.
    The needs as meant by the example of planting ,serving,training and number of years taken between when it was inspired and when it finally took place for real. The number of years we are told Noah out lived were above 900years ?!

    We as a modern mankind do not have that much of time to live by...but at least we have the technology,tools,equipments that earlier mankind had not, the earlier man had nothing other than hugely built bodies, longer time of living and some help by heavy wild animals to serve.!? 

    But what are those trees which we need to work hard for planting,serving,training in order we can build out of the Ark of salvation from another promised days and hours that had to come before the final Day and Hour would take place that time of which is not known to any other than God.

    There are good trees and bad trees, when only good and solid generous trees are wanted for such task.... 
    Messenger told even if you were told being the final day and hour for earth and you had a plant or palm tree in hands, you are not to hesitate from planting it.!

    Now could those present religions be considered as the good right trees for building the Ark of salvation? Or maybe we should say they are the right trees but need to be serviced and trained to give the required shapes for building the Ark of salvation for those who want to be saved and work hard towards being saved and not by worship prayers only but by both hard work and worship prayers just to get the physical and spiritual strength for their patience and diligence.!?

    Sure many would laugh as did ones before them and prophets and messengers were warned not to listen to their disbelief or try to compromise the pure belief.?!
    What is required to be done to get those trees of faiths allow us to make an Ark out of them to be able to save those who believe and want to save and be saved??

    Earth is our Space Ark floating in this universe, while faiths are our trees which we should make an Ark out of for our salvation on Earth!

    Ark inside Ark and only God knows how many Arks inside Arks in this universe of the Seen and the Unseen, each lives in an orbit floating !? 

    http://www.helium.com/items/230747-the-creative-fine-line-between-genius-and-insanity

    January 23, 2011 at 8:33 pm |
    • Reality

      And on and on and on and on goes the koranic-driven drivel !!!!!

      January 24, 2011 at 12:06 am |
    • Muneef

      Read nutshell;

      http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/Prophet/nuh.htm

      January 24, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
  8. StayPositive

    Those who don't believe in God may ask themselves, while on Earth, what do I have to lose?
    Think about it - if there is a God, you've got a better chance as a believer. If there isn't, it
    won't make any difference. I default on the side of God, trusting that in 3,000 years of stories,
    at least some of it has to be factual. Terrible horrors happen because God gave man free will -
    that includes free will to commit heinous acts. Plus - when tragedy hits, sometimes faith is all
    you've got. Without any sense of a higher power or divine grace, your lowest lows will be even
    lower.

    January 23, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • TheRationale

      Well you could be wrong about choice of religion and it could actually be Vishnu or Thor you have to answer to after you die.

      Pascal's wager is a very very bad piece of logic.

      January 23, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @StayPositive

      You said: "Those who don't believe in God may ask themselves, while on Earth, what do I have to lose?
      Think about it – if there is a God, you've got a better chance as a believer. If there isn't, it
      won't make any difference.

      Can a person fake a belief in god, that an all knowing god would not be able to detect?

      Which god did you choose to worship? If you chose badly, you could still end up at a very large barbecue. You cannot eliminate risk.

      If at the end of life, there is nothing, it does make a difference. If this is the only life you have, why spend your time and money worshiping a non-existent god?

      For further on this, google Pascal's Wager.

      You said: "I default on the side of God, trusting that in 3,000 years of stories, at least some of it has to be factual. "

      No, it just means that people like to tell stories that make them happy.

      When I was 12 or 13, I discovered the "Hardy Boys" books. I loved that pretend world. I talked about it and dreamed about it.

      Your stories about religion are the same. They are just wishful thinking.

      People are afraid of death. If science or aliens could bring a cure for death, religion would fade away.

      Cheers!

      Terrible horrors happen because God gave man free will –
      that includes free will to commit heinous acts. Plus – when tragedy hits, sometimes faith is all
      you've got. Without any sense of a higher power or divine grace, your lowest lows will be even
      lower.

      January 24, 2011 at 1:35 pm |
  9. HeavenSent

    Amazing. Simply amazing. I'm paying my respects and people have the audacity to question what I write!

    January 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  10. Muneef

    Al-Tawba sura 09:
    In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
    O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers. (23) Say: If your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and your wives, and your tribe, and the wealth ye have acquired, and merchandise for which ye fear that there will be no sale, and dwellings ye desire are dearer to you than Allah and His messenger and striving in His way: then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass. Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (24).

    January 23, 2011 at 10:35 am |
    • Reality

      Just a short list of koranic-driven acts of terror and horror done in the name of "merciful" Allah:

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

      1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

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

      3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops killed in action, 3,481 and 924 died in non-combat98,691 – 107,707
      Iraqi civilians killed as of 11/9/2010, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
      http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

      10) – Afghanistan: US troops 1,116 killed in action, 902 killed in non-combat situations as of 08/10/2010. Over 40,000 Afghan civilians killed due to the dark-age, koranic-driven Taliban acts of horror

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

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

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

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

      15) Followed by the daily suicide and/or roadside and/or mosque bombings every day in the terror world of Islam.

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

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

      January 23, 2011 at 10:51 am |
    • Muneef

      An-Najm sura 53:
      In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
      By the Star when it setteth, (1) Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived; (2) Nor doth he speak of (his own) desire. (3) It is naught save an inspiration that is inspired, (4) Which one of mighty powers hath taught him, (5) One vigorous; and he grew clear to view (6) When he was on the uppermost horizon. (7) Then he drew nigh and came down (8) Till he was (distant) two bows' length or even nearer, (9) And He revealed unto His slave that which He revealed. (10) The heart lied not (in seeing) what it saw. (11) Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he seeth? (12) And verily he saw him yet another time (13) By the lote-tree of the utmost boundary, (14) Nigh unto which is the Garden of Abode. (15) When that which shroudeth did enshroud the lote-tree, (16) The eye turned not aside nor yet was overbold. (17) Verily he saw one of the greater revelations of his Lord. (18).

      Al-Qalam sura 68:
      In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
      Nun. By the pen and that which they write (therewith), (1) Thou art not, for thy Lord's favour unto thee, a madman. (2) And lo! thine verily will be a reward unfailing. (3) And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature. (4) And thou wilt see and they will see (5) Which of you is the demented. (6) Lo! thy Lord is best aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is best aware of those who walk aright. (7) Therefor obey not thou the rejecters (8) Who would have had thee compromise, that they may compromise. (9) Neither obey thou each feeble oath-monger, (10) Detracter, spreader abroad of slanders, (11) Hinderer of the good, transgressor, malefactor (12) Greedy therewithal, intrusive. (13) It is because he is possessed of wealth and children (14) That, when Our revelations are recited unto him, he saith: Mere fables of the men of old. (15).

      January 23, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
  11. CatholicMom

    John Daley began tracking down members of his 70 member Peace Corp volunteers with a questionnaire in 1984 and was surprised when he received this letter from Sargent Shriver who was the first director of the Peace Corp:

    "You have asked me to write about what I have been doing in the 20 years from 1964-1984. PHEW! I have been leading a life reminiscent of a whirling dervish in the marketplace of Isfahan or Tabriz. I have been involved in working on or starting up the Peace Corps; Head Start; the Job Corps; VISTA; Upward Bound; Legal Services; Foster Grandparents; Green Thumb; Neighborhood Health Services; Special Olympics; Medical Research Centers at Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Einstein, focused on problems of the mentally retarded; and, most important, the Kennedy Inst!tute of Ethics at Georgetown University where we are pursuing 'an ethic of life'…

    "I have also had the joy of two years in Paris jousting with deGaulle, learning French, and eating better than any and all Peace Corps Volunteers…

    "I fitted in a four-month effort to win the White House with George McGovern. Like George, I can say that we would rather be us than "them guys what beat us."…Through this whirling dervish period, my five children have grown up. I hope all Peace Corps Volunteers watch my daughter, Maria, on CBS Morning News. My eldest son, Robert, practices law. My son, Mark, terrorizes the rugby fields of the East. My son, Anthony, is the cynosure of all female eyes. My son, Timothy, ranks #1 in the hearts of all the poor in New Haven, Connecticut.

    "My wife has survived all of this. So have I, but only because of all the volunteers who have helped us. … I hope everything has been equally joyous for all [returning Peace Corps volunteers]. You are among the ones who have made life full and wholesome and upbeat for me.

    "Sargent Shriver"

    All I can say, is ‘all things are possible with God!’ and he must have thought so, too.

    January 23, 2011 at 10:03 am |
  12. HisOwn

    LOL I think I need another cup of coffee, after that CORRECTION 🙂

    January 23, 2011 at 9:50 am |
  13. HisOwn

    Correcin above should say "love and LIGHT"

    January 23, 2011 at 9:49 am |
  14. HisOwn

    I saw this man on tv the other day, and although I did not know much about him, just looking at the man's face, was a picture worth a thousand words!
    He seemed to exude love and kight. He was in his wheelchair, and shaking hands with people. I am sure he will be missed by all who knew and loved him.

    Peace2All.....As usual, your thoughts are worthy of praise. I know what you believe, but your respect of others is awesome! I hope I am as good a Christian, in my manners and respect, as you are a Athiest. I always find ity a pleasure to see you within the blogs. Peace Brother!

    January 23, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • Peace2All

      @HisOwn

      Thank you for your kind words...and 'Peace' to you as well.

      Peace...

      January 23, 2011 at 10:05 am |
    • Steve (the real one)

      HisOwn,

      I second that! It really is a pleasure blogging with Peace! Too much ugly on this blog and that would include our side as Christians!

      January 23, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  15. doctore0

    SPOILER: There is no god, only religion

    January 23, 2011 at 9:22 am |
  16. Peace2All

    I don't really have any problem with Sargent Shriver and his faith. It seems that it was important to him and gave him comfort.

    I have no argument with this.

    Peace...

    January 23, 2011 at 2:26 am |
    • "The Rationale"

      How noble.

      January 23, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      or at the least, courteous and mature. I doubt Peace2All is expecting knighthood..

      January 23, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      "The Rationale"
      How noble.
      ------

      I can tell you personally, Peace2all is indeed mature and courteous. Again, I know this by blogging with Peace. We can learn from each other without being crass or ugly! that is why I enjoy chatting with Peace! Give it a shot! Oh, yeah, I Am a Christian!

      January 23, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Anglican

      "The Rationale" Why are you so hostile in your disbelief? Shriver did much good. What have you done for your fellow man in the name of disbelief? I bet I know the answer.

      January 23, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • TheRationale

      What? You can't do anything in the name of disbelief. That doesn't even make sense. It's like saying off is a TV channel. Disbelief doesn't compel anyone to do anything – it can't. Tell me, what does your disbelief in Odin compel you to do?

      January 23, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ TheRationale

      " hat have you done for your fellow man in the name of disbelief?"

      How about you answer Anglican's question?

      January 23, 2011 at 7:00 pm |
    • TheRationale

      @Let Us Prey
      Clearly you didn't read what I said, or perhaps you didn't understand it.

      Doing something in the name of disbelief is a logically incoherent thought. Here's another analogy. You don't collect exotic species of butterfly. When has not collecting exotic species of butterfly ever compelled you to do anything? Can it compel you to do anything to begin with? No. Disbelief doesn't and can't inspire anyone to do anything.

      January 23, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
    • Anglican

      The Rationale. You miss the point. Is there anything in this universe that is greater than you? Do you work for the good of mankind with anyone else? I know you will reference all the bad the Church has done, but you can not ignore the good.

      January 23, 2011 at 9:15 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ TheRationale

      A temporary lack of focus caused by a poor attempt to multi-task two blogs, chicken wings & a Beck, my email and a King of the Hill episode.....

      Apols.

      January 23, 2011 at 10:02 pm |
    • Peace2All

      @Steve (the real one)

      Thanks...very kind of you.

      Peace...

      January 24, 2011 at 3:32 am |
  17. Let Us Prey

    I can't force my religion on you. I can't simply take what's in my religious beliefs and say you have to believe and abide by these same things. Now, that doesn't mean that I can't make arguments that are based on my belief and my faith - right? If I'm a Christian, I believe in the Ten Commandments. And it says, Thou Shalt Not Kill. If a politician says " I'm going to pass a law against murdering somebody," that's not practicing religious faith; that's practicing morality that may be based in religious faith, but that's a universal principle - or at least one that can translate into a principle that people can agree on.

    Right?

    January 23, 2011 at 12:38 am |
  18. TheRationale

    It's always strange when people express how deeply they believe in imaginary things.

    January 23, 2011 at 12:29 am |
    • MuDdLe57

      Stranger still are half-baked adolescents who reject with contempt what educated, intelligent and sensitive people like Shriver found to be self-evident.

      January 23, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • "The Rationale"

      Let the man rest in peace. Settle your insecurity somewhere else.

      January 23, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
    • TheRationale

      Self evident? Really? Because to every non-Christian, "God" is self-evidently absent. How arrogant of you to simply assume you have some sort of high ground and to lump those no sharing your frankly ridiculous beliefs as "half-baked adolescents."

      Insecurities? I'm merely commenting on the fact that otherwise sane and rational people have these strange delusions. God is merely there to those who think he is.

      January 23, 2011 at 4:39 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ TheRationale

      Then again, if the shoe fits... what'cha gonna do? I know.. it's a dilemma.

      January 23, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
  19. Reality

    If this good man had only known the updated Apostles' Creed:

    The Apostles' Creed 2010: (updated based on the studies of historians and theologians during the past 200 years)

    I might believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created state of bliss called heaven.

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary.

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
    ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen

    January 23, 2011 at 12:25 am |
    • SouthernCelt

      Not quite accurate or even true. Unmarked grave? Hardly. It belonged to Joseph of Arimathea so he should have known where it was. When Jesus was entombed in it his disciples certainly knew where it was. When he disappeared from it thousands of people knew where it was. Today there is a Church (of the Holy Sepulchre) on that spot. There were also at least a dozen witnesses to His Ascension. There are fewer witnesses to some of Julius Ceasar's battles but everyone accepts them. Ever wonder why? There have also been numerous miracles since then but I guess you don't believe in them either, huh? No problem, God believes in you.

      January 24, 2011 at 8:17 pm |
    • Reality

      Professor John Dominic Crossaan

      "Crossan [Historical Jesus, 391-94] includes a discussion of Jesus' burial in his treatment of the death tradition. After rehearsing the usual Roman practices (see below) and the occasional exceptions that serve only to validate the norm, Crossan continues:

      The unspoken hope and the unspoken as-sumption behind the Cross Gospel is that Jesus would have been buried out of piety, by the Jews who had crucified him. It never actually describes that burial, but it presumes that those who executed Jesus are totally in control of death, burial, and tomb. ... Nobody knew what had happened to Jesus' body. ... by Easter morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care."

      Professor Gerd Ludemann

      "While noting that the burial tradition may be simply a postulate "derived from the fact of Jesus' death or knowledge of Jewish purity concerns" rather than the memory of an historical event, Luedemann's own preference, influenced in part by John 19:31-37 and Acts 13:20, is that Jesus was buried by Jews who were not his followers. There was no act of affection or devotion involved in the disposal of his remains. His body was simply removed from the cross and buried in some unknown location by Jewish people wishing to protect the imminent festival from the desecration of a dead body remaining on the cross over night. "

      January 25, 2011 at 12:04 am |
  20. HeavenSent

    The legacy of a true Christian.

    Ecclesiastes 12:5 Also [when] they shall be afraid of [that which is] high, and fears [shall be] in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:

    Ecclesiastes 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

    Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

    God Bless.

    January 23, 2011 at 12:22 am |
    • David Johnson

      @HeavenSent

      Do you have any proof that anything you are always posting is actually inspired by a god? Is actually true?

      Like all believers, you want to start from the assumption that god exists. But, there is no proof that He does.

      Even if god does exist, how do you know it is the Christian god, and not a Hindu god?

      Do you have evidence that your god exists, and that the other gods do not?

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2011 at 11:20 am |
    • Let Us Prey

      @HeavenSent

      Do you have any proof that anything you are always posting is actually inspiring?

      You want to start from the assumption that god does not exist. But, there is no proof that He doesn't

      Even if god does exist, how do you know?

      Do you have evidence that god doesn't exist?

      Don't lay the party line on me, David... I'm well aware that it's all driven by emotion, subjectivity and hypothetical. It's just fun to see it turned around to demonstrate the irrationality of arguing at all..

      January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      oops, sorry. c/p error. Meant for David.

      January 23, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Let Us Prey

      You stated: "You want to start from the assumption that god does not exist. But, there is no proof that He doesn't"

      Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that god does not exist. I think we can rule out god, in the same way we do Santa and his 8 tiny reindeer. Never actually proving there is no god, but close enough for arguments sake. A preponderance of the evidence if you will.

      One of the most compelling to me, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s). Some, not even human (The elephant-faced god – Ganesha etc.). Each religion, each denomination of each religion, defines god's wants differently. All of these religions cannot be right. But they can all be wrong. Why would the true god(s) leave room for confusion?

      Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. We don't need to postulate what isn't necessary.

      As far as the Christian God is concerned:

      If god so loves the world, why does he allow so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?
      I can explain the existence of these horrors as natural disasters, but my explanation fails when I include an all loving god in the equation.

      God is said to be all powerful and all good. How can he allow evil to exist in the world? If He were all good, He would want to eliminate evil. If He were all powerful, He would be able to do so. Yet, He doesn't. Evil persists.

      Man is said to have free will. The ability to choose. Yet, god is said to be all knowing. If god is all knowing, if the future can be known, then even a god would be bound by events in the future. Everything would be predestined.

      The attributes attributed to god conflict with one another. It makes this god's existence very unlikely.

      Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.

      Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the germs that are harmful to humans, plants and animals.

      If the Creation Story is not true, then there was no original sin. No original sin, then no need for a redeemer. No redeemer, then the Christians need a new heart throb.

      You said: "Don't lay the party line on me, David... I'm well aware that it's all driven by emotion, subjectivity and hypothetical. It's just fun to see it turned around to demonstrate the irrationality of arguing at all.."

      Determining the most likely "truth" is not irrational. We do it everyday.

      I find I am compelled to lay out a little of the party line, not for you, but for onlookers:
      It is the person who is making the extraordinary claim's job, to supply the extraordinary evidence that proves their claim is true.

      If I am told the will of god, I can expect some assurances that it is indeed His will.

      Cheers!

      January 23, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      @David Johnson who asked: Why would the true god(s) leave room for confusion?

      David, God is not the author of confusion. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders on people who either out of ignorance interpret God's word or just out and out misrepresent it. The fault belongs to people and not God (singular). I may never convince you but I am just simpling sharing my thoughts!

      January 23, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Steve (the real one)

      You said: " God is not the author of confusion. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders on people who either out of ignorance interpret God's word or just out and out misrepresent it. The fault belongs to people and not God (singular)."

      Really? There are literally thousands of different denominations of Christianity. Each, will happily show you scripture that shows theirs is the correct interpretation. Many believe that only their members will be saved.

      But, I guess yours is actually the word of the one true god. Now where did you put that proof...?

      In contract law, a court will typically interpret any unclear language of such a contract against the contractor writer (god); in other words, the court will generally favor the cause of the other party.

      You are talking about an all powerful, all knowing god. Does it seem likely that He wasn't capable of "inspiring" a bible that was not subject to errors in interpretation? Is it likely that His inspired work, would contain only Bronze Age ideas and morality?

      Yet another reason god is most unlikely:

      It is said, that god is perfect. By definition, all that He does should also be perfect.

      When we study the retina at the back of the eye, we can see that the cell layers are backwards. Light has to travel thru seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells. Then the signals go back thru these layers to the nerves on the inside surface. In addition, the blood vessels are on the inside surface and further block the light. A truly intelligent designer could have done better than the human eye. Actually, evolution did a better job with the eyes of birds (which have no blood vessels in the retina) and the octopus and squid (which have the light sensing cells on the surface).
      In fact, vision is so useful for survival that eyes have evolved independently at least twenty separate times, with at least a dozen different designs.

      Humans and other animals have many more examples of sub-optimal or bad design. Here are a few:

      One of the worst designs in mammals is the nerve for the larynx, called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It is much longer than it needs to be — going from the brain into the chest, around the aorta, and back up to the larynx. In humans it's about three feet too long, but in giraffes it's about fifteen feet longer than needed.

      The human pelvis slopes forward, which was useful for our knuckle-walking ancestors. The only reason that we can walk upright is because we have an incredible sharp bend at the base of our spines (which is the source for so much low back pain). Our abdominal organs are even suspended from the spine, which is just a vestigial holdover from when the spine was actually above them.

      The human baby's skull is too big, such that many women painfully die in childbirth if they don't get modern medicine.

      Where is the evidence for your god, Steve?

      Love and Prayers!

      January 23, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      My apologies to everyone for having put a quarter in David. I try to avoid it, but sometimes it's just irresistible. Lately David is giving a pretty good return on $.25.... he'll blather on for at least a couple of paragraphs.

      Dave, you know I love 'ya. My point... irritating little thing that it is, is always the same: It's irrational to pit the logic of science against emotionality which supports faith. It's an effort in futility, and only zealots of their respective positions pursue this.

      But, if you must.... march on, soldiers of faith or logic! I know the 'Christian Soldiers" hymn, but what about you heretics?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFWA1A9XFi8

      January 23, 2011 at 9:31 pm |
    • Anglican

      David Johnson. Are you a forensic pathologist or an anthropologist? Do you study skulls? ( I thing cut and paste) Why do you breath?. Not mankind. Why do you breathe?

      January 23, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      @David Johnson,

      If faith can be (as you keep saying) proven, then it would not be faith! Believe or not as your please. I am a believer and never claimed to be a theologian! I am a believer as much as that appears to be unreasonable or illogical to you! I see His creation as my proof, I feel His presence as my proof, I feel His love as my proof! My job is not to convince you or change your mind! My job is to share my faith even if it makes no sense to you! That is the job of the Holy Spirit! Proof for the holy Spirit? Read what I just wrote! I am more than satisfied with that proof! Have a great night!

      January 23, 2011 at 9:39 pm |
    • Anglican

      Steve The Real One. The Lord bless you and keep you. Good Night A.

      January 23, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
    • Steve (the real one)

      Anglican
      Steve The Real One. The Lord bless you and keep you. Good Night A.
      ----------
      Do the same and stay encouraged! Be blessed in the Lord!

      January 23, 2011 at 9:48 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ DJ

      Um, David.. I don't know your source for the "physical inadequacies" diatribe, but much of it is either embarrassingly-selective or simply inaccurate.

      "Light has to travel thru seven layers of cells before reaching the light sensing cells.. In addition, the blood vessels are on the inside surface and further block the light.." (as opposed to) "... the octopus and squid (which have the light sensing cells on the surface)."
      UV light is absorbed by molecules known as chromophores, which are present in the eye cells and tissues. Chromophores absorb light energy from the various UV wavelengths at different rates – a pattern known as absorption spectrum. So this would be a reasonable adaptation to UV light on the surface and absence thereof under the sea.
      chemguide co uk analysis uvvisible theory.html#top

      "One of the worst designs in mammals is the nerve for the larynx, called the recurrent laryngeal nerve."
      anatomyatlases org AnatomicVariants NervousSystem Text RecurrentLaryngealNerve.shtml

      " an incredible sharp bend at the base of our spines (which is the source for so much low back pain)."
      Back pain is typically caused by either vertebral degenerative changes, inadequate muscular development or soft tissue (STI) strains of the extensor, flexor, oblique and gluteal muscle groups. Nerve damage is atypical. [spine health com]
      The 'bend' you reference is at the very end of the spine in the sacrum.

      "Our abdominal organs are even suspended from the spine"
      No, they're suspended from the abdominal wall musculature. You need to go to Gray's and look at some pictures of the parietal and visceral peritoneum.

      So exactly where are you getting this crap from, anyway? Dawkins? It's one thing to offer your opinion – great. But don't be so completely naive as to offer misrepresentations of human anatomy or you'll simply look foolish.

      January 23, 2011 at 11:18 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Steve (the real one)

      You said: "If faith can be (as you keep saying) proven, then it would not be faith! "

      You misunderstand Steve. Faith cannot be proven. It is therefore worthless. I have faith I have fairies living in my left shoe and that they will carry me to Fairyland when it is my time. Faith without evidence will never lead you to the truth. Faith is like a drug that alters reality.

      Jesus said, "Faith could move a mountain". But it can't. Can you move a mountain Steve? Do you know of anyone who can?It is just pie in the sky. Wishful thinking. Stupidity.

      Mathew 17:20 – He(Jesus) replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

      Your Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or badly misquoted. LOL

      You said: "I see His creation as my proof"

      Your argument of "god's creation" assumes the universe is designed in order to prove that it is the work of a designer. This begs the question. Making assumptions is never wise. Right?

      The argument also suppresses evidence: for all its wonderfulness, the universe is also full horrible things. Babies born without brains, good people suffering horrible diseases – children dying of cancer, evil people basking in the sun and enjoying long lives. Volcanoes erupting, earthquakes killing thousands, hurricanes and tornadoes blindly wiping out thousands of lives.

      You are looking at the universe, through your, as Ken Ham would say, bible glasses. He has people put these glasses on, before he spouts his ludicrous theories. Take those glasses off. Stop using selective observation, and the design doesn't seem near so grand.

      You said: ", I feel His presence as my proof, I feel His love as my proof!"

      And people who worship Allah, feel his presence and love. And the followers of Judaism feel their god's presence and love. And Hindus feel their god(s) presence and love. Why are your feelings special? Delusion is delusion. Many followers of a religion, feel their god enough to burn and blow themselves to bits. Feelings ain't proof. All feelings are products of our physical brains.

      Not too long ago, there was a blog about a woman who converted to the Religion of Islam. She talked at length about her feelings. But, I guess your feelings are so much different. LOL

      You said: "My job is not to convince you or change your mind! My job is to share my faith even if it makes no sense to you!"

      And my task is to point out how absurd your faith is. You are deluded.

      Love and Prayers!

      January 24, 2011 at 9:22 am |
    • CatholicMom

      David Johnson,

      Do you know what a parable is?

      Matthew 17:19 Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.
      "As a grain of mustard seed"... That is, a perfect faith; which in its properties, and its fruits, resembles the grain of mustard seed, in the parable, Matthew 13:31.

      Matthew 13-31 Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. 32 Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.

      The parable of the mustard seed is a story not of a mustard seed but of perfect faith and that if one had perfect faith nothing should be impossible for you….why? because if you had perfect faith…you would have the fullness of the Holy Spirit within your soul and thus nothing would be impossible for you…that is, because with God all things are possible; without God our good works are as straw, worthless.

      January 24, 2011 at 10:05 am |
    • Steve the real one

      @David Johnson,

      While faith is worthless to you and those like you. I can assure you with EVERYONE that I have and EVERYTHING within me, faith is PRICELESS to me and those like me! Thanks for your opinion though!

      January 24, 2011 at 10:33 am |
    • Steve the real one

      @David Johnson,

      I leave you Sir with these last words:
      1. The preaching of the Gospel is FOOLISHNESS to those that are perishing
      2. God uses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise!!
      3. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools!

      There are a lot of smart, highy educated folks out here and they seem to have the greatest difficulty with faith!

      Yes these are quotes from the Bible and since you don't believe in the Bible, none of the quotes should bother you one bit! Take care and looking forward to blogging with you again!

      You seem to have great difficulty comprehending my faith!

      January 24, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • David Johnson

      @CatholicMom

      Believers always use theological gymnastics to defend the biblical.

      Believer's Rule of Thumb: If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is a translation error; means something other than what it actually says; or is magic.

      Prayer does not work.

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 10:58 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Steve the real one

      You said: "While faith is worthless to you and those like you. I can assure you with EVERYONE that I have and EVERYTHING within me, faith is PRICELESS to me and those like me! "

      Of course its PRICELESS to you. It's all you've got. Cling baby Cling! LOL

      Jesus, if He ever existed, is long, long dead. He promised to be back in the first century.

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 11:05 am |
    • Steve the real one

      @David Johnson,

      Yes I will cling! Thanks for the ecouragement! Knowing that you did not mean it as encouragement, yet I will certainly accept it as such! Thanks David!

      January 24, 2011 at 11:10 am |
    • Steve the real one

      @ david Johnson,

      yes said: "Jesus, IF He ever existed...."

      Am I detecting a ittle atheistic doubt? A litlle crack in the armor, perhaps? You even capitalized the 'H" in He! What is up with that, David? I am calling on all Christians on this blog to pray hard for David Johnson! I see a crack in the armor!

      January 24, 2011 at 11:16 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Let Us Prey

      Wikipedia: Main article: Evolutionary baggage

      The eyes of many taxa record their evolutionary history in their imperfect design. The vertebrate eye, for instance, is built "backwards and upside down", requiring "photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses – which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns."[32] This reduction in efficiency may be countered by the formation of a reflective layer, the tapetum, behind the retina. Light which is not absorbed by the retina on the first pass may bounce back and be detected.

      Read the entire article. Quite a promo for evolution of the eye.

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 11:16 am |
    • Anglican

      @David Johnson. Christ never said he would return in the first century. He said He would be vindicated during the lifetime of some of His followers. The fail of Jerusalem, a consequence of Jewish nationalism, and the rise of the post Easter Church. Read the Bible. I know you will not, I wish you would.

      January 24, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • Steve the real one

      David Johnson

      @Let Us Prey

      Wikipedia: Main article: Evolutionary baggage

      The eyes of many taxa record their evolutionary history in their imperfect design. The vertebrate eye, for instance, is built "backwards and upside down", requiring "photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses – which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns."[32] This reduction in efficiency may be countered by the formation of a reflective layer, the tapetum, behind the retina. Light which is not absorbed by the retina on the first pass may bounce back and be detected.

      Read the entire article. Quite a promo for evolution of the eye.

      Cheers!
      -----–
      You just explained the immense complexity of the eye. Yet you believe it was result of a "random accident" Sir, I believe it was the result of intelligent design, the handy work of Creator God!

      January 24, 2011 at 11:42 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Anglican
      You said: "Christ never said he would return in the first century. He said He would be vindicated during the lifetime of some of His followers."

      Jesus Predicted 1st Century Return:

      Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” – Matthew 24:34
      This controversial verse is in all three of the Olivet Discourse accounts. (These accounts are to be found in Matthew 24:1-51, Mark 13:1-37, and Luke 21:5-33).

      For some time, critics of the Christian faith have argued that Jesus explicitly said here that all of the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse, including His return, would happen before the last person living at that time died.

      Jesus promised, that He would return within that generation, but He did not. Since He was wrong, He could not have been God, so the Christian faith, is based on error.

      To bolster the argument, in all of the other places in the Gospels where Jesus used the term “this generation,” he was referring to people living at that time.

      These guys also feel Jesus was "mistaken" LOL!

      The respected Christian apologist and author, C.S. Lewis 1960 essay "The Worlds Last Night"
      “Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

      Bertrand Russell, in his book, 'Why I Am Not A Christian',
      He discredits the inspiration of the New Testament: "I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospel narrative…He certainly thought that his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at the time. There are a great many texts that prove…He believed that his coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of his earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of his moral teaching." Russell later reasons that it would be fallacious to follow a religious leader (such as Jesus) who was mistaken on so basic a prediction as his parousia.
      parousia = second coming
      eschatology = •the branch of theology that is concerned with such final things as death and Last Judgment; Heaven and Hell; the ultimate destiny of humankind.

      Albert Schweitzer in his 19-century book, 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus', summarized the problem of "Parousia delay" as follows: "The whole history of Christianity down to the present day... is based on the delay of the Parousia, the nonoccurrence of the Parousia, the abandonment of eschatology, the process and completion of the 'de-eschatologizing' of religion which has been connected therewith."

      These predictions were made by the Jesus:

      Mathew 16:28 – "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
      which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of
      man coming in his kingdom."

      Mathew 23:36 – "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon
      this generation."

      Mark 9:11 – "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that
      stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they
      have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

      Luke 9:27 – "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here,
      which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom
      of God.

      The fundies will try to muddy the water, but that is what the King James says.

      Believer Rule of Thumb: If a bible verse furthers the cause, it is to be taken literally. If a bible verse is detrimental to the cause, it is either: taken out of context; is allegorical; refers to another verse somewhere else; is a translation error; means something other than what it actually says; or is magic.

      Hmmm... Lunatic, Liar or Lord...I guess we can rule out lord. LOL!

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 11:42 am |
    • David Johnson

      @Let Us Prey

      Wikipedia: Recurrent laryngeal nerve
      Evidence of evolutionThe extreme detour of this nerve in giraffes (fifteen feet farther than the direct route of a designer) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. [1]

      [edit] References1.^ Dawkins, Richard (2009). "11. History written all over us". The greatest show on Earth. New York: Free Press. pp. 360–362. ISBN 9781416594789. http://books.google.com/books?id=U8AFxmc76rcC. Retrieved November 21, 2009.

      Science need only show lack of intelligence in nature's designs, the human frame being a prime example. One's frame is certainly close enough to the individual voter and contains obvious design defects easily explained by evolution but embarrassing for IDers. (1) Our pelvis slopes forward for knuckle dragging like all the great apes. Only by an extremely sharp bend of our spine can we stand erect: an evolutionary artifact or a design weakness obvious to any first-year engineering student? (2) Our mouths have too many teeth: either the result of an evolutionarily flattened mammalian muzzle or a design plan that couldn't count accurately above twenty? (3) Our facial bones are squashed by an expanded brain case to produce a sinus drainage system that would embarrass the local plumber: evolution or just plain stupid design?
      Copyright 2005 The Geological Society of America (GSA), all rights reserved.

      So, it is the believer's choice. Either evolution, or stupid design from an underachieving god.

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Steve the real one

      You said: "You just explained the immense complexity of the eye. Yet you believe it was result of a "random accident" Sir, I believe it was the result of intelligent design, the handy work of Creator God!"

      You only think that, because you are ignorant. Read Richard Dawkin's latest book, "The Greatest Show On Earth". You will be enlightened and possibly set free from your delusion.

      I too shake it off, and move on. LOL Damn, I love me some the fundies!

      January 24, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
    • gerald

      David,

      That an answer hasn't been given for your "Proofs" does not mean one does not exist and that you have proven anything, except in your own mind. What is truly an imperfection in mankind can easily be explained by the doctrine of original sin. What is less then optimal does not imply imperfection. A container that holds a cup of water is not imperfect because it does not hold a million gallons. It is designed for what is needed. I don't see anything as it is designed in humans that is insufficient for our needs. The very improbablility of the existence of life on this planet, i.e. the perfection of our orbit and distance from the sun and gravity, etc. etc., the difficulty of amino acids ever coming to be, let a lone the more complex proteins necessary for life, actually becoming life, another biological leap in a chain of about 40 biological leaps, of which there are about 10 million bilogical leaps to get to a human, is equally if not more so a proof for the existence of God than your "proofs" to the contrary that show lack of understanding of Christianity and a blind eye toward any possibility that your own logic does not have all the data needed to make your claims hold water.

      God bless you.

      January 24, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      David Johnson
      @Steve the real one
      You said: "You just explained the immense complexity of the eye. Yet you believe it was result of a "random accident" Sir, I believe it was the result of intelligent design, the handy work of Creator God!"
      You only think that, because you are ignorant. Read Richard Dawkin's latest book, "The Greatest Show On Earth". You will be enlightened and possibly set free from your delusion. I too shake it off, and move on. LOL Damn, I love me some the fundies!
      -------
      Mad love back at you Sir! In fact , not just my love but God's as well!
      1. No delusion here, my friend but thank you for the concern!
      2. Ignorant (lack of knowledge)? About many things yes and I am bold enough to admit that. Ignorant about my faith, again bold enough to tell you I don't know everything about everything BUT I know enough to trust in my God and his Son, Jesus!
      3. I love me some, eh what would you call yourselves? Athese? Whatever! Love you back, just the same! While you may not be serious, I can assure you I am! LOVE YOU BACK!

      January 24, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
    • Reality

      And concluding with:

      The Apostles' Creed 2010: (updated based on the studies of historians and theologians during the past 200 years)

      I might believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
      and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
      human-created state of bliss called heaven.

      I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
      preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
      named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
      girl named Mary.

      Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
      the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

      He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
      a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
      Jerusalem.

      Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
      many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
      ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
      Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
      grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
      and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
      called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

      Amen

      January 24, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Steve the real one

      Are you simple? Jesus may have been a real man. He also may have been a composite of Horus, Mithra and Krishna. Only the gospels record the story of Jesus. There were no eyewitness accounts.

      Jesus at best, was a human. At worst he was a myth. Probably, he was both.

      Cheers!

      January 24, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • Steve the real one

      david Johnson,

      You asked me a question so I will answer. No I am not simple. My turn, can you converse without calling names? I am not offended or anything, it just that I care for you. When you call names it reflect far more on you than your target! You said Jesus may have existed as a real man but had no witnesses. No witnesses? Josephus? The apostles (disciples)? The Apostle Paul? The more than 4000 he fed (that is jus the count of the men)? The Romans (Pontius Pilate, to name just one)? I know you did not mean it that way BUT since you left the door open, The only way Jesus would not have had ANY witnesses is if He were invisible!

      January 24, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • Bob

      > You want to start from the assumption that god does not exist.

      It's not an assumption. It's the default position on anything.

      January 24, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
    • Let Us Prey

      @ DJ

      Rockhounds and Dawkins and Wiki ... oh my!

      I don't care about the secular/sacred argument, Dave. I just want a little accuracy in play here, ex., we are still learning about the RLN, and everything is obviously a 'work in progress'. Whether evolutionary, by design; either with a simple nudge here and there from a guiding force or a chromosome or cell that appears 'cause it just makes sense..

      We don't know, Dave. We can't. There's no way. The universe is simply not meant to be, or not able to be, understood – at least by us, and not now. Any concept we may have about 'God or god' is a figment – of reality, imagination, or understanding. Anyone that adopts a belief about God is going on.. faith. That's all. Anyone that promotes a denial of god is going on... logical supposition. That's all.

      These two are meant to co-exist only in terms of social decency and consideration Inherently, they don't 'work and play well with each other.' I don't understand why you're so.... aggressive? Or mean-spirited ? (pun intended..) Really, David, what's the point ? I think back to our conversation (when I was 'Dancing with Trolls') and how we talked about my wife, your niece and the utility, futility, powerlessness, or embarrassment of faith. It served a purpose – at some level, to some degree. I understand making a decision not to believe... but why do you continue to be so hateful of other that are?

      Unless, of course, you're simply trying to p!ss people off for fun...

      January 24, 2011 at 11:04 pm |
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.