February 11th, 2011
07:55 AM ET

Kentucky Senate passes bill to teach Bible classes in public schools

From CNN Louisville, Kentucky affiliate WLKY

Frankfort, Kentucky - Bible classes could be taught in Kentucky public schools under a bill that's made it halfway through Kentucky's legislature.

State Senator Joe Bowen wants Kentucky public school students to have an opportunity to take classes about the Bible.

"No doubt about it, the most important book ever written and obviously, it's had so much influence on our society and all of western civilization," Bowen said. Last year, former State Senator David Boswell introduced the same bill. It passed the Senate, but died in the house. Bowen defeated Boswell last November.

Read the full story from CNN Louisville, Kentucky affiliate WLKY.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Education • Kentucky • United States

soundoff (1,056 Responses)
  1. Protractor

    There is plenty of room to teach both the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creation myths in our publis schools. The solution is to simply teach evolution in science class, where it belongs, and biblical creation myths in mythology class, where they belong. I see no issue with sharing the fables, parables and creation stories from various versions of the bible alongside similar mythology from ancient Greece, Egypt, the Americas and so on. Such mythology seen across the spectrum of time is a fascinating study of the evolution of thought.

    February 14, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • The One True Steve

      So from reading the posts, none of the pro-God folks have any faith in their Churches or the parents (including themselves) ability to teach their children about whatever God they choose.

      Apparently its up to the government to teach children about God. To those who said wouldn't it be great if they taught all religions? That is not the case with this legislation, it is a Christian only based law. Besides that, if you have ever looked up anything on different religions, there are so many, it would be impossible to teach all the variations. if you can't teach them all, then you are offending someone.

      If that is the case, then what is the point of Church and Sunday School? Wouldn't a Church be the most qualified to teach about God?

      February 14, 2011 at 10:39 pm |
  2. Sara

    Hmm...so about this separation of church and state...

    Also, if the Bible is taught in public schools, when are classes going to be taught using the Torah and the Koran?

    February 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm |
  3. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    Historically, the Bible was not as important as some would have you believe. Before the advent of the printing press with movable type (1450), complete Bibles were few and far between. Even most churches did not have complete bibles, only breviaries from which to read the assigned scriptures. Other books were in far greater circulation, including Boethus' "Consolation of Philosophy", Augustine of Hippo's "City of God" and the works of Caesar, Aristotle, Maimonodies and the Koran!

    Literacy was discouraged for all but the few destined for service in the clergy (most of the nobility, including the royalty. were illiterate), so even when Bibles were appearing, approximately 99% of the population were incapable of reading them, especially as the only "authorized" versions in most of Europe were in Vulgate Latin.

    Even so, for the next seventy or so years, the established Roman Catholic Church forbade the people from having their own bibles, and instead used Catechism manuals for them to study their religion. It took Luther's reforms to bring the Bible to the people. So for anyone to claim that the Bible is the most important book ever written is to deny literature which is older (the Upanishads, the Mahabarata, the Pali Canon) or recognized by more people as a religious authority (the Koran), and shows only a narrow, pedestrian view.

    This is not to say the Bible is not great literature! It is, but it should not be viewed as "history". Most of what we call the "Old Testament" was not put into writing until after the Babylonian Exile started (hundreds of years after the events of the Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, the Books of Samuel and Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, etc.). What we call the "New Testament" was assembled by a group of clerics under the command of the Emperor Constantine (a practicing pagan at that point) to provide a single, agreed source of scripture to eliminate the number of divergent sects each claiming to be the true authority of the Church of Jesus the Christ! They then picked and chose among the Jewish writings that they wished to include, too. The rest they attempted to destroy as "apocryphal" and/or "heretical".

    As a Christian, I personally believe the Bible is the Word of God, that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers and/or translators to bring us God's truth. As an educated person, I believe the Bible is great literature, and when the most inspired translations are used, the poetry and power of its writers is undeniable. As an American Citizen, I have no problem with them offering a class on the Bible in a public school, but I do not believe it should be a mandatory class for anyone.

    February 14, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • InFormed

      Agreed, right up to the last paragraph. You can't go off on a diatribe about the roots of the book being a fairy tale (similar to the books of Hans Christian Anderson) used to teach moral 'good' to bronze age farmers than then talk about it being 'Gods' word.

      February 23, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
  4. Mott the Hoople

    Theists should be opposed to this concept! The demonic, wicked nature of the Biblical "god" is fully behind the current atheistic uprising. Are you wondering why there are so many atheistic comments to this thread? Do not deny it, the "god" of the Bible is a monster. Bottom line: if you truly love God, then reject the Bible. Look to the East.

    February 14, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
  5. derp

    In 20 years this country will be Christian theocracy. In 40 years it will be a third world failure. I'm outta here!

    February 14, 2011 at 11:57 am |
    • David Johnson


      You said: "In 20 years this country will be Christian theocracy."

      Yes, I agree. The thought makes me wake up at 3:00 AM to puke my guts out.

      If the Christian Right is able to achieve a Theocracy, with Jesus as Head of State, only the Christian Right will be able to hear the long dead voice of Jesus. They will tell the rest of us, His will.

      How often do you think Jesus will disagree with the Christian Right? LOL

      Fight the good fight against this. Vote for the Dems. The Republicans are the puppets of the Christian Right.


      February 14, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
    • Observer

      Why would anyone expect a Christian theocracy in 20 years? The polls all show a reduction in the number of people claiming they are Christians. The movement to be "politically correct" and renewed support for the separation of church and state has resulted in a greater awareness that religions should stay out of our government. The trends are toward more freedom of "religion" (including atheists and agnostics beliefs).

      Are you the atheistic versions of "The end of the world is near"?

      February 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
  6. Shannon

    There is nothing better than reading an artilce about education, then reading all the misspellings in the comments. Perhaps we should focus on the basics since most of the folks on here can't spell common words.

    February 14, 2011 at 11:17 am |
    • InFormed

      Seriously, don't discount the message just because you don't like the cut of their cloth.

      February 23, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
  7. Curious

    Why don't they call it Theology and teach all forms of religion? By educating young people of all types of religion, maybe tolerance will grow.

    February 14, 2011 at 10:50 am |
    • Rocket Surgery

      Good Point! Kids in public schools would expand their cultural awareness with basic theology classes. It would help kids understand their neighbors better.

      February 14, 2011 at 11:11 am |
    • David Johnson


      You said: "Why don't they call it Theology and teach all forms of religion? By educating young people of all types of religion, maybe tolerance will grow."

      'Cause that is not the purpose. The purpose of those proposing the bill, is to ingratiate themselves with their Christian const_ituents.

      The purpose of the Christians is to promote Christianity.

      Having their kids learn about Mohammad, isn't something the Bible Belt is interested in. LOL


      February 14, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
    • rachel barringer

      How about teaching Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennett????????

      February 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm |
  8. Adam

    We have no reason to believe that the Creator of the Universe wrote one of our books. And to quote Sam Harris: "to presume knowledge where one has only pious hope is a species of evil."

    February 14, 2011 at 10:34 am |
  9. illuz

    The simple fact is there is no proof for god.

    There is however proof of evolution, to deny evolution is like denying the existence of gravity.

    February 14, 2011 at 10:14 am |
    • Selfish Gene

      Gravity is just a theory. Right fundies?

      February 14, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
  10. zip

    Just what we need. More people walking around talking to the imaginary voice in their head.

    February 14, 2011 at 1:28 am |
    • JazzyJim

      Beck is the finest example of psychotic delusions and mystic wonder – or crazy.

      February 23, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  11. Vin

    Oh great gods. Jesus, protect me from your followers.

    February 14, 2011 at 12:45 am |
  12. Heather

    I dont think it would be a problem to offer a bible class in a public school as long as students could choose to take the course or not. I am a Christian and I wouldnt have a problem with other religions being taught in public school either. I think it is good to be aware of what is being taught in our world. The only issue I have with bible class is who would be teaching it. I believe that you can read the bible and know what it teaches without a teacher telling you what it teaches. But you have to read the bible as a whole otherwise it doesnt make sense. If you read it in chunks it comes off contradicting and confusing. A lot of "Christians" have not read the whole bible and tend to follow what their preacher says. The problem with that is that a lot of Christianity today is wrapped up in traditions that don't even connect with the bible. Jesus teaches us to love and to be about non violence. However many times Christianity is tied with the Republican party which makes us look hateful, anti-gay, and violent. This is just not right. And I am not saying it should be tied to the Democratic party either. But instead living like you actually believe what the bible says. It is no wonder that non christians dont take us seriously. We rarely follow Christ the way He taught us to follow HIm.

    February 14, 2011 at 12:17 am |
    • rachel barringer

      It all sounds nice, but unfortunately your premise is flawed.

      February 26, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
  13. Q

    @HeavenSent – The geologic evidence and the fossil record are very clear, there is no evidence of any global flood. Not once and certainly not twice. The fossil record provides a very clear picture of a discrete and progressive development of biological forms and never an all at once special creation or an all at once destruction. While the authors of the bible were certainly without modern scientific understanding, their dependence on the land for survival would undoubtedly have made them decent naturalists. To believe they would describe dinosaurs, an incredibly diverse group of animals ranging from smaller than a chicken to larger than a city bus and occupying virtually every known ecological niche, with the single description provided for Bohemeth is disingenuous at best. The same is true when creationists attempt to claim "dragon" mythology was a reference to dinosaurs. One would think, given the familiarity required of creationist claims, dinosaurs with all of there incredible features would have been consistently captured in historical texts/art to some minimal degree representing this diversity, yet this is not the case. Not a single unfossilized remnant. Plenty of references to extant animals but nothing which clearly describes dinosaurs. Why? Because they simply had no idea dinosaurs ever existed any more than they understood the genetics of inheritance, i.e. Genesis 30:37-39 (where this latter example provides a very clear example of a factual error in the bible).

    February 13, 2011 at 11:48 pm |
  14. Water to whine

    This is a huge and embarressing step backwards in education. Our high school education in the U.S. is already ranked as one of the lowest quality in the industrialized world. And, these people want to make it worse. Religious indoctrination of children should never be pushed by a gov't. This is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! What about the non-Christians in Kentucky? What about the spearation of church and state? This is an example of religious folks in a free society attempting to make the society less free by pushing their own religious agenda on the public. This is the kind of thing the people of the U.S. claim is wrong with nations like Iran, yet here we are turning to the same religious rule they employ. And, no one should try the argument that our nation was formed based on Christian doctrine by Christian people. It was not. Several of the key founding fathers were agnostic, including the one who wrote the declaration of independance. Our nation is not a church.

    February 13, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
  15. Victor Freeman

    Let's all break out the navigational charts from before the dark ages and see where they lead us. The same can be said for their inaccurate, misguided philosophy. To the extent there is much to pander, there is fear to believe in its nonsense.

    February 13, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • rachel barringer

      Love this.

      February 26, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  16. HeavenSent

    Seriously, CNN. What is your problem with blocking posts of the Lords that were written centuries ago?

    February 13, 2011 at 3:25 am |
    • Rocket Surgery

      Don't Spam the site with crap and you won't get blocked.

      February 14, 2011 at 11:08 am |
  17. HeavenSent

    Susan, Page 10 of 12 (split in 2 parts)

    continuation of 2 Peter 3:5-13

    8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
    10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
    11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
    12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
    13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

    This is the third age yet to come (commonly referred to as Heaven).

    February 13, 2011 at 3:23 am |
    • rachel barringer

      Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

      February 26, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  18. HeavenSent

    Susan, the mod squad refuses to post the rest. Denying God's wisdom is a sin folks.

    February 13, 2011 at 3:18 am |
    • Evolved DNA

      HeavenSent.. you are only blocked because you may have words in there that looks like it may have "bad" thats all.. sorry you cant claim persecution on this one. Sorry cut and paste is a waste of time. you still have zero proof for your bible..

      Now.. how do you know that it may be god stopping your posts anyway? you don't need proof now do you?

      February 13, 2011 at 11:40 am |
    • HeavenSent

      EvolvedDNA, fact is, I posted the exact same scriptures on another article on this Belief Blog and it was accepted. Why did the mod squad not allow the exact same posting of scriptures on this blog? They are purposely allowing what can be blogged and what can't be blogged. Therefore, this site is tipped in the non-believers favor.

      February 13, 2011 at 9:04 pm |
  19. Despier

    If the "theory" of Evilotion can be taught, which is, in fact, only a theory, then why can't the Word of God be taught. I mean they didn't find a piece of a corner of a sheet of paper and say, "wow this came from a book, that had a red cover and was 1,000 pages long". Yet the Evilotionist find a bone fragment and give us ever so lovely paintings of a whole creature. All that just from a fragment. WOW, I am not impressed. By the way, Charles Darwin was a racist and did not think all men are created equal, compared to God, who created all men equal AND died for all so that they might be saved.

    February 13, 2011 at 3:15 am |
    • Q

      Already responded to this duplicate...

      February 13, 2011 at 3:19 am |
    • HeavenSent

      Correction. You should have stated "taught AGAIN".

      As soon as Jesus' truth was yanked out of the schools and public places, satan's lies, deception, and of course evil ideas replaced His Truth, WISDOM.

      We've had enough of the evil being produced. Time to replace evil thinking with God's truth and wisdom and we will see this country come alive again.

      February 13, 2011 at 4:09 am |
    • Jenn

      Because Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory and 'word of god' is a RELIGIOUS THEORY and secular fiction Mythology! Again SPARATION of Church and State!

      February 13, 2011 at 11:10 am |
    • Water to whine

      You've obviously not looked into evolution yourself. You can't even spell it right, but you are forgiven for this. You, however, are woefully misinformed about evolution being simply a therory. I bet you have only listened to one side on this issue, the religious side. Prove to me that it is incorrect, and you might have some credability. Evolution is a proven and accepted scientific phenomenon. Those who deny this are simply denying themselves the truth. I suggest you go to school and major in evolutionary biology, then, try to deny it. You will not be able to. Evolution is only under attack because it scares Christians to think the Bible can't explain everything. By the way, I do not deny the existance of God. Niether, do I deny the existance of the reality that he created. It sounds as if you might understand one of these things. Now, try to understand the other, and you will be enlightened. Happy learning.

      February 13, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
    • Water to whine

      Darwin was a racist? Really? Prove that racism wasn't rampant with all Europeans of that era, and your statement might hold some water. And, his suposedly racist views, according to you, leave no blemish on his scientific breakthroughs. By the way, I come from a very strict religious background. I know entire churches that still look down on racial integration. Entire Christian towns, in fact. A black family started going to my church a few years ago, and the entire church split. Please. There is a plank in your eye, my friend. Worry not about Darwin's splinter.

      February 13, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
    • David Johnson


      Evangelicals are really fond of saying Evolution is "just a theory". I have seen several people on these blogs explain, that the use of the term theory by science is not the same as the term used in common usage.

      I think fundies just don't want to acknowledge that "theory", as used by science, is accepted as factual by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

      In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility.

      But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

      Here is what these terms means to a scientist:

      HYPOTHESIS: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
      This would be like the layman's use of the word theory.

      THEORY: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. – Source: http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

      I am sure Evangelicals will always scream "It's Just a theory". They are desperate. They can see their god drowning in a sea of scientific discoveries. LOL


      February 14, 2011 at 9:23 am |
    • Rocket Surgery

      There is a reality of difference between science and religion. One being the study of facts, the other of myths..

      February 14, 2011 at 11:06 am |
    • Stevegnostic

      You are committing the logical error of equivocation.
      Equivocating is purposely or through ignorance trying to tie the meaning of one word to another.
      In this case, your usage of the word theory in regard to religion and science is completely different.
      Religious explanations for the orign of life and the reason that life is in its present form are not scientific at all and cannot be treated in the same fashion.

      You're attempting to equivocate what barely amounts to an untested hypothesis (religious notions which have no basis in fact or proof) and a well tested scientifc theory – a theory in a scientific sense is a rigorously tested hypothesis with corroborating evidence across multiple scientific disciplines: chemistry, biology, paleontology, archaelogy, etc which all point to the same evidence that evolution is true.

      Educate yourself before putting forth illogical arguments which are designed and used by ignorant or willfully decietful people who can't stand the fact that the evidence does not support their crazy religious philosophies which strain creditbility to be called even a hypothesis.

      February 14, 2011 at 11:36 am |
    • Steven

      It is also just a theory that flipping a coin will produce half heads and half tails. That can never be proven. However you can conduct an experiment to study coin flipping and all evidence collected will support the theory being true. Similarly, Evolution cannot be proven, but all manner of experiments can be conducted and physical evidence can be collected to support the theory being true. Creationism is based on faith, not science. Please construct experiments to test the hypothesis of creation and report back the evidence collected. You cannot scientifically validate the truth of creationism simply by claiming doubts about all alternatives. If God created the universe, who created God? You might answer "God just is". Well, perhaps "the universe just is". Creationism does not solve the problem of existence. Enjoy your faith, but don't force it on others. Even the Vatican acknowledges the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution does not say where the universe came from or how the first spark of life occurred, only how the diversity of life resulted thereafter. Who is to say that Evolution is not the consequence of a really good design for life. IIt is not inconsistent with religious faith.

      February 14, 2011 at 11:42 am |
    • Stevegnostic

      Again, you are equivocating.
      It is a hypothesis that all coin flips are 50/50 not a theory.
      Please, educate yourself on the correct use of scientific terminology before continuing.

      February 14, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • David Johnson


      Great comment, except for this sentence:
      "Who is to say that Evolution is not the consequence of a really good design for life."

      There is no evidence for intelligent design.


      February 14, 2011 at 11:56 am |
    • TCM

      "Word of God"??? Since when has the Bible EVER been the Word of God? The Bible is written by people, and is way more theory (and BS) than evolution, which has been sicentifically proven. I suppose you believe that global warming is also only a theory as well, even given all the recent evidence that everyone has seen? You are also confusing Jesus and God. God did not die so to save us, that was Jesus, according to a history book that has been written and re-written and translated and re-translated dozens of times. Brilliant post, guy.

      Either way, I think offering up the teaching of the bible should be allowed, as long as it is never a required class and is also considered a history class and not deemed as 'fact'. They can call it the "Theory of God" class. My children would never take it, but it's fair to offer it to others.

      February 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
    • Den

      "Theory" is a word that many if not most evolution-deniers seem to have trouble with. A scientific theory is the closest thing to truth that science has, because science is a work in progress. A scientific theory is the end result of a chain of events that involves looking at the natural world and trying to understand why it works the way it does. After this initial observation, a hypothesis is proposed to explain part of that natural behavior. Experiments are then designed to test this hypothesis. If the experiments prove the hypothesis, it can become part of a theory; if the experiments don't prove the hypothesis, then it's back to the drawing board. At some time later, a better hypothesis may come along, and the whole process starts over again.

      Hypotheses that have failed the test of time include the notion that light required an "aether" to travel through, that fire was caused by an element called phlogiston contained within flammable objects, and that organic evolution was caused by changes willed into place in the creatures who were evolving (Lamarckian evolution). Plate tectonics was a crackpot hypothesis until it was found to best explain the behavior of continental drift. The history of science is full of these kinds of false starts and back-tracking.

      "Theory" is not the same as a suggestion, a notion, or some wild-eyed idea. It's the basis of scientific inquiry, and like I said, the closest thing to "truth" that science has. Gravity is explained by a theory; does anyone seriously believe that gravity is just one of several ideas that might keep us standing on the floor instead of floating into the sky?

      I am a Christian, but I also subscribe to the theory of evolution. I don't see any conflict or contradiction believing both these things. Teaching about the Bible – as history, as literature, as mythology, as moral guidebook – should be possible in public school. Teaching the Bible as dogma, as a prescribed set of believes both cultural and religious, should not. Separation of church and state exists for the very good reason that when the power of the state is applied to matters of eternal life and destiny, corruption occurs. Hypocrisy runs rampant, and liberty is dead in its tracks. History should be enough of a guidebook that the idea of a theocracy should send us all running in the opposite direction.

      February 14, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
    • Steven

      @Stevegnostic – I know the difference between a hypothesis and theory as well as you do, but apparently Despier does not, so I spoke in comparable terms to better make the point.

      @David, of course there is no evidence for creation/design. My comment: "Who is to say that Evolution is not the consequence of a really good design for life." was only meant to show that one can accept and not be afraid to teach the established science of Evolution without conflicting with a faith-based belief that Evolution is the natural and inevitable consequence of an initial design of life. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to exist, only how the forms of life change over time.

      February 14, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
    • David Johnson


      You said: "only meant to show that one can accept and not be afraid to teach the established science of Evolution without conflicting with a faith-based belief that Evolution is the natural and inevitable consequence of an initial design of life."

      Umm...Evolution doesn't conflict with how life began, but it puts an awful crimp in the Creation story and the New Testament. If there was no Adam and Eve and Evolution says there wasn't, then there was no original sin. If no original sin, then there would be no need of a redeemer. Sort of makes it hard to keep Christianity credible.

      Some believers have concluded that accepting Evolution is unavoidable. They have attempted to mesh Evolution with their belief of a Messiah and Heaven and Hell.

      When examined, the two are incompatible. The bible is either true as written, or it is not. I respect the fundies more than people who have sold out. LOL

      There is no evidence that there was an initial design of life. There is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer.
      You keep wanting to use that term.

      abiogenesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. – Wikipedia

      Notice the word "natural", in the definition above. There is no reason to believe that life was the product of the supernatural. No god appears to be needed. No sign of intelligent design. Google "abiogenesis". It is a hoot!


      February 14, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
    • standingwave

      Tell you what Despier.Next time you go to church ask someone what the difference is between the word "theory" as a scietific term and the same word in general usage.It's a mistake religionists consistently make.

      February 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • Roelof

      Evolution theorie is also based on non-proof. Because where do those particles come from.. or that big mass of heat with time in it and all the stuff that mattered and thought.. hmm let's go boom? Also out of a big bang?

      February 15, 2011 at 12:42 am |
    • Q

      @Roelof – True, there is always philosophical room for a cosmological "first cause" deity (though certainly nothing approaching evidence). But to suggest the current models are without supporting evidence is either ignorant or disingenuous. With respect to biological evolution, the evidence from every relevant scientific discipline consistently and concordantly affirms the theory of evolution.

      February 15, 2011 at 1:05 am |
    • Amused

      Did you say GOD died for us all ??? Please explain...

      February 15, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
    • Corwin7

      Thanks for enlightening me...I wasn't aware that God died on a cross.

      February 22, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • JazzyJim

      That's why you have your church, synagogue, temple, home, et. al.

      February 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • rachel barringer

      If you read something more than the bible, you would understand that what you consider a theory and what science considers a theory are two radically different things.

      February 26, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  20. HeavenSent

    Susan, now they're blocking me ...

    February 13, 2011 at 3:01 am |
    • thankG0D

      Thank God....oops, he isn't real.

      February 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • Kardiac

      burp, again

      February 17, 2011 at 11:46 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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.