home
RSS
Top evangelical to Anthony Weiner: Try Jesus
June 14th, 2011
11:59 AM ET

Top evangelical to Anthony Weiner: Try Jesus

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) - One of the nation’s most prominent evangelicals has entered the debate over whether Anthony Weiner will benefit from therapy, encouraging the embattled  Jewish New York congressman to try Jesus instead.

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, tweeted this message of the weekend: “Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ."

The tweet set some tongues a wagging, especially because Weiner is Jewish.

USA Today said the remark echoed Fox News' Brit Hume comment that golfer Tiger Woods, a Buddhist, should try Christianity after he became embroiled in a sex scandal last year.

Mohler, who leads the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention - the nation's largest evangelical denomination - took to his blog Tuesday to defend himself amid the controversy, noting that his tweet “never mentioned Judaism.”

“Rep. Weiner’s problem has to do with the fact that he is a sinner, like every other human being, regardless of religious faith or affiliation,” Mohler wrote. “Christians — at least those who hold to biblical and orthodox Christianity — believe that salvation is found through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him alone.”

Mohler called the controversy over his tweet “another sign of how politically incorrect biblical Christianity is becoming in our times.”

What do you think? Is Mohler simply stating Christian doctrine? Or is it improper to suggest that members of other religious traditions who are facing crises try Jesus?

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Jesus • Judaism

soundoff (968 Responses)
  1. The Dude
    June 15, 2011 at 11:01 am |
  2. The Dude

    Ok, Jesus is real..God is real.

    Now consider the world without either. How would our world be different if they were not? Would all the current Christians be raping and murdering (More than they do now..89% of jail inmates are Christian).

    How different would our world be?

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eqKb5ViN_Q&w=640&h=360]

    June 15, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • Boggled

      There would be no difference, because that is the way it already is. You are in a godless universe, much like what some Christians describe as Hell.
      If you are in Hell, how would you know?

      June 15, 2011 at 11:11 am |
  3. bluffbarron

    For those of you who bash religion...

    First, make sure you bash all religions equally.

    Second, if you do not believe in anything then that too is a belief. This brings with it no more intellectual standing than those who do believe in a religion. Those who do not believe can neither prove nor disprove the existence of GOD.

    Third, for all the atheists out there....what is your basis for acting appropriately (morally)? Because you’re a good person? What is good and who creates the standard for good? Likewise, what is bad? Science will never be able to solve these questions. Neither will your willful ignorance.

    Everyone will die...then we will all find out! I love it! See you in Heaven....or NOT!

    June 15, 2011 at 10:20 am |
    • Boggled

      bluffing, eh?
      Moral Relativism is what you are using to judge others, not your Bible.
      There are no moral absolutes. None.
      Any religion that shows it's slimy face around here is going to get slapped down just as easily.
      Hell makes no sense at all. You couldn't even explain it without sounding like an idiot, so don't even try.
      Are you going to hold me accountable for something I didn't do? That makes no sense, either.
      If you understood your own religion at all, you wouldn't even dare to say anything about it at all, for you have no basis for belief that is not morally bankrupt and intellectually bereft of reason.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:30 am |
    • bluffbarron

      Boggled...

      Don't be angry! You really should not waste your negative energies on me as I don't know you!

      Be advised that I will never respond to you again. Consider yourself privileged to have received this reply.
      P.S. Make sure your family buries you in your bathing suit and have them drop some suntan lotion in the coffin. It is going to be hot where you are going.
      LMAO!

      June 15, 2011 at 10:50 am |
    • Boggled

      Laughing as you run away defeated, eh?
      Giggling to yourself is not much of an argument, nor is saying I don't know you, as I did not speak of such things.
      If you can't support anything you said, then your words are all worthless, like this response of yours.
      Have fun being a gullible fool. Self-deception can be very comforting.

      June 15, 2011 at 11:09 am |
    • Peace2All

      @bluffbarron

      Hey -bluff b...

      Is there an argument anywhere in there, especially your last posting to @Boggled...?

      It seems that your response was basically to 'attack' boggled with the unproven assumption that he(boggled) is going to burn in hell.

      And, the way you put it, it sounds like you are arrogantly and smugly happy about it.

      Maybe I'm wrong here, but I would love to see rational arguments from believers, not just the old..."sorry, you're wrong and we are going to watch you 'burn' etc... responses we see so often here.

      Respectfully,

      Peace...

      June 15, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • Boggled

      Thanks, Peace2All. I like the way you said that. It's much better than what I cranked out.
      Peace

      June 15, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • LinCA

      @bluffbarron

      You said: "First, make sure you bash all religions equally."
      I bash religion in approximately the same ratio as the religions used to mock science, reason and rational thought. I am an equal opportunity religion basher. Since, other than Muneef, there aren't very many proponents of other religions than christianity on this comment board, christianity will get the majority of the bashing here.

      You said: "Second, if you do not believe in anything then that too is a belief. This brings with it no more intellectual standing than those who do believe in a religion. Those who do not believe can neither prove nor disprove the existence of GOD."
      because there is not a shred of evidence to support the existence of any god, there is no reason to believe there is one. While the chance is not zero that there might possibly be a god, the odds are incredibly low. Even if, against all odds, there is a god, there still isn't any evidence that he/she/it is in any way, or ever has been, actively involved with our reality. The statement "there is no god" is scientifically true.

      You said: "Third, for all the atheists out there....what is your basis for acting appropriately (morally)? Because you’re a good person? What is good and who creates the standard for good? Likewise, what is bad? Science will never be able to solve these questions. Neither will your willful ignorance."
      I know what is right and what is wrong. I don't rely on fairy tales to determine what is just.

      You said: "Everyone will die...then we will all find out! I love it! See you in Heaven....or NOT!"
      You don't seem too confident that you'll make it to heaven. 🙂
      I know that, if there is a heaven that is run by a just god, I'll be there. Now, on the other hand, if it is run by yours, I will end up in hell. But I'll gladly take an eternity in hell over heaven if it has to be in the presence of your god and his/her/its/ followers.

      Peace.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
  4. Mike

    Wow. Reading some of these comments, I think some of you need Jesus, too.

    June 15, 2011 at 10:18 am |
  5. William Demuth

    So how is trading on pri*k for another is supposed to help?

    At least Weiner is straight!

    June 15, 2011 at 9:48 am |
    • A message for all of the readers on this forum:

      Try Jesus

      😀

      June 15, 2011 at 10:10 am |
    • Boggled

      Yeah, try Jesus. He was crooked too.
      You need a full selection of religious frauds and political frauds for a well-rounded life-experience.
      And don't forget the Nazi Pope!
      What diversity there is in religion! It just boggles the mind!

      June 15, 2011 at 10:16 am |
  6. JamestheJust

    Jesus is starting to appeal to Jews, not the other way around and in some strange way I have seen Jews throw Jesus in Christians’ faces because of some of the interpretations of what Gentiles thought Jesus was, quite ironic. Jews are starting to realize that Jesus was not a Torah killing Roman sun god, he was Torah observing Super Jew and will soon, just a matter of time, realize he is the Messiah (Isaiah 53 anyone).
    http://www.yahwehyeshua.com

    June 15, 2011 at 8:58 am |
    • Laughing

      You sir, are simply put, an idiot. Jesus was a super jew? Really? What most of us jews know is that this mythical jesus that you hold up as the messiah was just an egomaniac that made trouble for jews, claimed he was the messiah without actually following the rules laid out in the old testement what would happen when the messiah came and basically he was just an outcast who had some people that believed him. I don't know where you get your sources from, but let me help you from someone who is a member of the jewish community and pretty involved.... Jews are not turning towards Jesus and won't ever.

      You should probably also know that although an involved jew I may be on some issues, I am also an atheist, so the whole idea of this jesus being a savior is just as silly as moses and his ten plagues, so I find you to be an idiot not only in that you apparently have never met a jewish person, but that you hold that the bible is the word of god.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • FairGarden

      Jesus appeals to me this is why I get on my knees

      June 15, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
  7. Jay

    youtube video clips really make your point – you are too ignorant to speak for yourself.

    June 15, 2011 at 6:38 am |
  8. johnbonham

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM&w=640&h=390]

    June 15, 2011 at 2:03 am |
  9. wriZoNg!

    If you keep up with current science, you might have already known these things.

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8P-V3Iqxk&w=640&h=390]

    June 15, 2011 at 1:49 am |
  10. Atheism FAILS

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGSH979kbPQ&w=640&h=390]

    June 15, 2011 at 1:46 am |
    • zeie

      I only need a sentence to explain why I *am* an atheist as opposed to a 10-minute video saying the opposite:

      I'm a grown man who has no need to believe in fairy tales.

      June 17, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  11. Atheism FAILS

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpEyqRtJw_E&w=640&h=390]

    June 15, 2011 at 1:44 am |
  12. Atheism FAILS

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcxMrSrZoGI&w=640&h=390]

    June 15, 2011 at 1:43 am |
    • HotAirAce

      The evidence for the existence of gods is no better than the evidence for the non-existance of gods, so the claim that believing god is logical while believing that there are no gods is illogical is just bad logic and wishful thinking. The rest of video is just a fancy version of Pascal's Wager. In other words, nothing new here.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:52 am |
    • lemme intrrroduce you to my leeetle freeend!

      😀 😀 😀 😀 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSaaYTKIE70&w=640&h=390]

      June 15, 2011 at 2:11 am |
    • FREEDOM FRIES ROCK

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ&w=640&h=390]

      June 15, 2011 at 2:13 am |
  13. HotAirAce

    "Trying Jesus" would merely be subst!tuting one disorder for another. But of course, believing in the massive fantasy role playing game we call religion gets a free pass in society, while sending pictures of your privates (to persons representing themselves as consenting adults) gets you condemned (not that I think sending embarassing pictures is a good or smart thing to do).

    June 15, 2011 at 1:29 am |
  14. FairGarden

    Members of other religious traditions need to hear about Jesus ALL THE TIME! Everyone needs medical care – the same thing. When did USA turn into a communist state? The Jews need Jesus. He is the One Israel has been waiting for – her long-awaited Divine Messiah. Jesus will save Israel at the end, but don't wait since it may be too late for you.

    June 15, 2011 at 1:02 am |
    • Free

      They're not waiting for a "divine messiah". Never were. That's a Christian invention.

      June 15, 2011 at 8:12 am |
    • William Demuth

      Same sick blatherings from an indoctrinated hater.

      June 15, 2011 at 9:50 am |
    • FairGarden

      Join me on my knees to service Jesus.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:24 pm |
    • zeie

      Don't worry, your superst.itious kind will go extinct in the next few centuries and common sense should start to prevail.

      June 17, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  15. PRISM 1234

    The question:" What do you think? Is Mohler SIMPLY STATING Christian doctrine? Or IS IT IMPROPER to suggest that members of other religious traditions who are facing crises try Jesus:"

    Neither! Mohler is not "simply stating a Christian doctrine", NOR it is improper to do what he did...

    When he said :"There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ" he spoke THE TRUTH!

    This Truth applies to every human being alive! We ALL are fallen creatures, and sin is our disease.

    If there is a deadly epidemic rava-ging the earth, killing multi-tudes of people, do we who have the cure refrain ourselves from offering it, being the only thing we have to keep them from dying? (Yeah, the greedy, corrupt capitalist -pharma-mafia would, but not so with God!)....... but that's basically what the question above was asking, because we may offend........ Oh, what wretched human race we are!..... Should we worry to offend the dying, and just let them die?

    There is no person alive that does not need Jesus Christ, because He is THE ONLY salvation, the very Lamb of God whom He sent to redeem fallen mankind. Through the power of His resur-ec-tion He is able to give new life to all those who come to Him by faith in His finished work on the Cross, casting their sins far as the East is from the West, to remember them no more, and bringing healing to the broken lives.
    No person on this earth deserves to have this great amazing offer of mercy, forgiveness, and love kept hidden from them!....

    We all are beggars in this world, having come into it with nothing, and we will leave it with nothing . Who is there among the " high and mighty" that will say in pride, he doesn't need this offer of mercy?
    If there are those who in the folly of their proud and arrogant hearts and in blindness that has darkened their minds they don't see their beggarly condi-tion, and who think it to be an offence when they are told of their need, it is no loss to the bearer of this blessed news if the one who hears it refuses ...

    But by no means should those who know the truth silence their voices!

    Because if the ungodly in their folly think that their voices with their beggarly opinions are important, how much more important is The Truth we speak, and the message of hope we bring to those who are weary and know that they are poor and needy in this world, longing to be set free by God's grace and His unmeasurable mercy?

    This is the truth that does not depend on approval of men, It is settled forever, and stands above any man's opinion, IT IS INFINITE ! And if millions upon millions years pass, with all that exists in this universe turning to dust, this truth will never fade, nor ever change.
    Blessed are those who don't turn away, shutting it out of their hearts! Blessed, happy and free are those who are not ashamed, nor refrain themselves from proclaiming it!

    Albert Mohler, Blessing, peace and joy of our Lord be with you!

    June 15, 2011 at 12:50 am |
    • i wonder

      PRISM: "If there is a deadly epidemic rava-ging the earth, killing multi-tudes of people, do we who have the cure refrain ourselves from offering it, being the only thing we have to keep them from dying?"

      You have no proof that what you are offering them is anything other than sugar pills. And even sugar pills, if given in excessive quant.ities, can cause harm.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:54 am |
    • lilwayne YAYUH!

      i wonder:

      check it...

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZhUrKiRGrQ&w=640&h=390]

      June 15, 2011 at 2:01 am |
    • i wonder

      lilwayne: This one does not have the lugubrious yet honeyed tone of your flick, but does contain some substance.

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcnvtrRMeuQ&w=640&h=360]

      June 15, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  16. Ida

    Reading the comments, I am sad how many people out there hates Jesus and Christianity and how they manipulate and twist the TRUTH around. You guys are using your own knowledge and ideology when it is just so easy to follow what the Lord has put His words in the Bible. We are all sinners in the eye of the Lord. We are not perfect. We ask His guidance everyday to do good and follow His Words and Let all the the things we do in life are according to His Will not Mine. Peace and Love to all

    June 15, 2011 at 12:43 am |
    • leonard

      christianity is not the truth far fro it it is a pagan faith

      June 15, 2011 at 12:47 am |
    • Ida

      @Leonard. Stop the insult. Keep it to yourself if you don't like it. It's like someone's cursing the true existence of your own parents . You have parents right and that is the truth. Be polite.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:06 am |
    • HotAirAce

      @lda

      If you do not want your beliefs challenged, do not expose them in a public forum such as this. If you write something that someone else might take issue with, expect to be challenged.

      PS: There are no gods! Not even just one, no devil, no leprechauns, no pink unicorns, nor a real Santa Claus. Now go ahead – challenge by assertions.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:34 am |
    • William Demuth

      Christianity gives its folloowers the same perverted thrills Weiner gets from his camera phone.

      June 15, 2011 at 9:51 am |
    • Free

      Ida
      It's not Jesus that people dislike. It's not even most Christians. What people dislike are the Christians who portray Jesus as some angry despot who sits like the Queen of Hearts pronouncing "Off with their heads" at everyone THEY judge as sinful. The rest of us recognize this as the personal power trip it is, and that includes Christians who are content to leave the judging of sins to God.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:04 am |
    • Ida

      @Free, Then they should just hate the person , not badmouthing Jesus and Christianity. I don't even like those kind of people who mislead the Christianity. The bible tells us to be aware of false prophets.
      @Hotairace, I voice my opinion in this forum to the people of any kind. You can say whatever you want to say, and I can say whatever I believe but i would never insult your beliefs. Peace. JCLU all .

      June 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      @HotAirAce
      One thing can be surely said about you, and it's that you've got plenty of hot air to keep your
      Hot – Air – Bag- Of – Crap afloat!

      June 15, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      @lda

      Your statements to the effect that you know the truth and that we are all sinners are by themselves insults to those that do not subscribe to your brand of tribal mythology. If you make claims such as these, you should expect others to challenge them.

      June 16, 2011 at 12:23 am |
  17. Jon Vaala

    Al Mohler is perfectly within his First Amendment rights. If you don't agree with his comment, that's fine. Don't subscribe to his Twitter account. We are all grown ups here. Anyone should be allowed to speak their religious views within the public sphere. Anthony Weiner is not compelled in any way to listen or accept Dr. Mohler's tweet. Dr. Mohler is expressing his concern for Congressmen Weiner out of Christian love. Dr. Mohler would be the first to admit he's just as much a sinner as Anthony Weiner is. God offers His gift of forgiveness to all men. But as a Christian, I don't believe God or Dr. Mohler is forcing anyone to accept that belief. It's up to you do so. What is so offensive about that message?

    June 15, 2011 at 12:30 am |
    • LinCA

      @Jon Vaala.

      I don't see too many posters arguing that he doesn't have the right to say what he said. He most certainly does. Just as he has the right to be an idiot and a bigot.

      Just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to say, and even less that you are right saying it.

      Words have consequences. When you show the world you are an idiot and a bigot, you can expect some backtalk.

      Peace.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:39 am |
    • Peace2All

      @Jon Vaala

      Hey -Jon...

      First, I concur with my fellow poster @LinCA here.

      You Said: "God offers His gift of forgiveness to all men."

      And... I would respectfully suggest in that sentence you are *inferring* your 'beliefs' as if they are 'facts.'

      Regards,

      Peace...

      June 15, 2011 at 1:23 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @LinCA

      I don't see anyone *arguing* that what Al Mohler said makes him bigoted or was wrong either. Where is the *argument* for that? We just have the typical knee-jerk assertions. Read the comments here, the fundy atheists are just as bad as the fundy Christians they think they are attacking.

      Al Mohler said that he thinks Weiner would do better to follow his set of beliefs (which happen to be Christianity). Others, according to you, are "arguing" (read: asserting) that Mohler is wrong and he would do better to follow their set of (politically correct) beliefs.

      The irony is that if Mohler is a bigot for calling on someone to adopt his beliefs, on the presumption that his beliefs are better and correct, then all the people whining about Mohler being wrong and (presumably) how he needs to change his actions/beliefs here are just putting their hypocrisy on display for everyone to see.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:27 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Peace2All

      Your observation that Jon is "*inferring*" his "'beliefs' as if they are 'facts'" looks awfully trite when you consider that *everyone* infers that their beliefs are correct (factual).... In fact, you are inferring that your beliefs about Jon's beliefs are facts.

      So... what? Why do you think that is a problem and if it is a problem for Jon it's a problem for you too. You're either making an irrelevant observation or just shooting yourself in the foot here.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • Boggled

      Facts have proof. Faith does not.
      They are not equal and never will be.
      To pretend that a religious belief is based on facts is easily proved wrong, whereas facts cannot be proved wrong and can also be proved right.
      Religious beliefs cannot be proven right, only wrong. That is a pretty big difference.
      To "infer" something requires critical analysis, which religion cannot do without destroying any credibility in the process.
      I could go on, but I have some things to do. Religion is not fact. Religion is false and can be proven to be based upon nothing but "say-so".

      June 15, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • Peace2All

      @IToldMeSo

      Hey -ITMS...

      You Said: "So... what? Why do you think that is a problem and if it is a problem for Jon it's a problem for you too. You're either making an irrelevant observation or just shooting yourself in the foot here."

      Interesting thoughts, ITMS. And, actually I am -neither- "shooting myself in the foot" nor "making an irrelevant observation." Nor, is it a "problem" for me 'too.' I am not the one making claims of a supernatural deity.

      I was and am commenting on -Jon's sentence. He made a 'claim.' His sentence had assumptions built into it, such as there 'is' a God, He forgives everyone, etc... etc... And, I was deconstructing 'his' claim.

      As for as 'your' 'assumption' that my observation was 'irrelevant,' is obviously 'not' accurate to 'me' nor in general over the last year to 'many' on this belief blog.

      People that make arguments couched within the subtext of absoluteness of a Deity are making unproven speculative claims.

      So... It matters 'very' much to me, and others as you will see from the variety of posters on this blog.

      Regards,

      Peace...

      June 15, 2011 at 11:08 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled:

      Can you give me a definition of proof? And can you then give me a definition of faith that shows "faith" and "proof" are incompatible? And can you then show me why I must accept those definitions, such that I cannot have an understanding of faith and proof that are consistent with each other?

      I believe it was the atheist Austin Dacey who said "proof is a tricky thing"... so good luck.

      It's a shame that you wasted your time giving us more unfounded assertions instead of giving us actual arguments. Surely you know that you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you by saying silly things like "religion cannot be proven right."

      And surely you already knew that religious people already knew that there were fundy atheists (er... I guess "New Atheism" is the more popular term) who made such assertions... so what's the point? You say you have limited time, so why not spending it more productively on something like giving actual arguments instead of bare-bones assertions that just preach to your own choir?

      June 15, 2011 at 11:14 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Peace2All

      You haven't given me anything like a coherent reason to believe you haven't shot yourself in the foot.

      You just point out that Jon made a claim. So what? You made a claim too.

      You say you are commenting on Jon's sentence. So what? I'm commenting on your sentence.

      You say that Jon makes an unproven speculative claim. Well I haven't seen you prove that this is an unproven speculative claim. So you're just making your own unproven speculative claim.

      You'll need to try building a coherent argument if you want to actually avoid the self-referentially incoherent nature of your claims.

      June 15, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • Boggled

      World English Dictionary
      proof (pruːf) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

      — n
      1. any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc, of something
      2. law the whole body of evidence upon which the verdict of a court is based
      3. maths, logic direct induction See also induction a sequence of steps or statements that establishes the truth of a proposition
      4. the act of testing the truth of something (esp in the phrase put to the proof )
      5. Scots law trial before a judge without a jury
      6. printing a trial impression made from composed type, or a print-out (from a laser printer, etc) for the correction of errors
      7. (in engraving, etc) a print made by an artist or under his supervision for his own satisfaction before he hands the plate over to a professional printer
      8. photog a trial print from a negative
      9. a. the alcoholic strength of proof spirit
      b. the strength of a beverage or other alcoholic liquor as measured on a scale in which the strength of proof spirit is 100 degrees

      — adj (foll by against )
      10. able to resist; impervious (to): the roof is proof against rain
      11. having the alcoholic strength of proof spirit
      12. of proved strength or impenetrability: proof armour

      — vb
      13. ( tr ) to take a proof from (type matter, a plate, etc)
      14. to proofread (text) or inspect (a print, etc), as for approval
      15. to render (something) proof, esp to waterproof

      [C13: from Old French preuve a test, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probāre to test]
      ****
      World English Dictionary
      faith (feɪθ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

      — n
      1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
      2. a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
      3. Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
      4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
      5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
      6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
      7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith , break faith )
      8. bad faith insincerity or dishonesty
      9. good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith )

      — interj
      10. archaic indeed; really (also in the phrases by my faith , in faith )

      [C12: from Anglo-French feid , from Latin fidēs trust, confidence]
      *************
      There are the definitions. Why you are unable to look them up on your own, I have no idea.
      Proof is testable, faith is always without proof.
      If you are not understanding just how deep the water is you are in, I can only guess at your arrogance in assuming you could bluff your way past me when I am here.
      If you do not accept the dictionary as a reference, then you are a fool.

      June 15, 2011 at 11:31 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled

      I didn't doubt that you could define proof and faith in such a way that the two were incompatible. One doesn't need a dictionary to do that. It's an old trick in debate called "true by definition" where you simply define your terms such that you have to be right. Unfortunately, it doesn't pass for anything other than a debate trick.

      That's why I went on to ask you: "can you then show me why I must accept those definitions, such that I cannot have an understanding of faith and proof that are consistent with each other?"

      Unfortunately, you failed to do that. You just assert that if I don't accept the dictionary then I'm a fool. But I can even play your own game and come out on top. For instance, I can take Dictionary.com's definition of faith in the first sense it lists: "confidence or trust in a person or thing."

      So if I accept dictionary.com's first sense of the word "faith" and I take the first sense of "proof" that you quoted from Word English Dictionary then anyone can see that faith and proof can be compatible:

      I can have faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing) *because* I have "proof" (evidence that establishes or helps to establish).

      So much like Peace2All, you just shot yourself in the foot since I can use the dictionary, including the one you cite, to show that your assertions about faith and proof being incompatible are wrong.

      Of course, you can just say I picked the wrong senses. You can say I should have picked the second sense of faith at Dictionary.com... but then that gets into the further question I asked: WHY must I adopt that sense and not the first one?! Well, because, you're just trying the "true by definition" trick.

      ...And atheists wonder why they only make up a very small minority of the population.

      June 15, 2011 at 11:45 am |
    • Boggled

      So you would cherry-pick in order to seek a loophole through which you could go your merry way?
      Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way. There are no loopholes in verifiable facts, testable evidence, and logical analysis.

      You are being intellectually dishonest in pretending that the definitions do not matter.
      They do matter if you're going to use the English language properly and not like a chuckle-headed fool.
      Faith is not faith if there is proof that it is true.
      Proof is verifiable, testable, etc. Faith is none of these things. You cannot test the truth of faith because it is not true and is not testable. It fails every test.
      Prayers do not work. Pleasurable sensations are not proof of the supernatural. Hearsay is not evidence.
      I could go on if you like.
      Confidence or trust, it doesn't matter. They are not proof of anything but that proof is not addressed in any way.
      That's why confidence men, or con-artists, are so successful. They know that if they can get away with not having to produce proof, they can get their victims to do anything.
      You are not refuting any of my arguments. All you are doing is attempting to divert the argument away from your lack of proof.
      Try this: If you cannot prove your faith to be true or correct, what makes you think that it is true? Simple gullibility is all it takes. You "trust" because there is nothing to go by. You cannot have both proof and faith, for they are incompatible and impossible to reconcile.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled:

      LOL, how have I 'cherry picked'? Just because I didn't pick the sense of the word in the dictionary that you wanted me to pick? In order to show that I'm "cherry picking" or picking the sense I want in an unjustified manner you have to first demonstrate (via some argument) that I must pick the sense of the word you want me to pick.

      So, as I've asked on at least two other occasions now, where is your argument for that? So far, you are long on assertion, short on argument.

      Obviously you have nothing, you say I'm not "refuting" any of your "arguments" yet *WHERE* are your arguments? You haven't given any because you don't have any. The only tools in your shed are psychologize, assert, define away.

      This is why atheism always has been recognized as intellectually bankrupt by the majority of the population.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
    • Boggled

      You are incorrect in assuming I need you to do anything in particular.
      If you want to pretend the language we are using doesn't matter, that's your prerogative.
      I don't have to keep making valid points that refute your points. I can just ignore you.
      If that's what you want, just let me know. I don't need to bandy words with a fool.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled

      Yes, sticking your fingers in your ears (or "ignoring me") at this point is probably your best bet. It's not like you've made any serious attempt to interact with thus far anyway.

      Unless, of course, you count "truth by definition" to be a serious attempt at interaction... But then I showed how I could play your own game and still come out on top.

      Maybe you would have better luck at using the same method as the guy who calls himself "Laughin" in this thread: just say I'm wrong three times and then try to insist that the terms must be used the way you say they must be used.... Oh wait, you're already halfway there, since you're both trying to true-by-definition trick.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • Boggled

      So instead of "true by definition" (where you already lost), you prefer...what? "Truth by assertion"?
      Did you have something in mind?
      You are a curiousity. You hate dictionary definitions when they didn't pan out the way you had ignorantly hoped, so you want to try something else?
      Go ahead and knock yourself out. Are you going to use the English language or would you prefer we speak in "tongues"?

      June 15, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled

      You say: "So instead of "true by definition" (where you already lost), you prefer...what? "Truth by assertion"?
      Did you have something in mind?"

      Uh, yeah, and I made that clear on about three different occasions now.... How many times do I have to say it? I'm looking for an *argument* (or reasons) as to why faith must be held in the sense you want it to be held in and not in the other sense of the term. Why is that so hard to understand?

      You say: "You hate dictionary definitions when they didn't pan out the way you had ignorantly hoped, so you want to try something else?"

      LOL... I hate dictionary definitions? More psychologizing from a fundy atheist. I demonstrated that I can utilize the dictionary definition to maintain my thesis: faith and proof are compatible.

      You are now pretending that the dictionary somehow proves me wrong. But I already gave a response to your dictionary attempt, at which point you said you were going to ignore me... So I guess pretending you won and ignoring me go hand in hand.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • Boggled

      You said, "I'm looking for an *argument* (or reasons) as to why faith must be held in the sense you want it to be held in and not in the other sense of the term. Why is that so hard to understand?"
      It's not hard to understand.
      I already addressed it when I said, "You are incorrect in assuming I need you to do anything in particular.
      If you want to pretend the language we are using doesn't matter, that's your prerogative."
      I have already pointed out that your cherry-picked definitions DO NOT and CAN NOT be used to reinforce each other, as you keep insisting on in such an ignorant manner. Faith and proof are mutually exclusive by simple definition of each.
      Faith is a belief without proof. Proof is the opposite.
      When you try to meld the two of them together, you are essentially making up your own definitions of the words to fit them in a ridiculous manner. The common dictionary definitions of the words show them to be mutually exclusive.

      As for the "sense I want it to be held in", I never really pointed that out, did I? So where did you get this idea that I did?
      I was using YOUR definitions and STILL pointed out your massive, glaring errors in logic using YOUR selections.
      And you have no idea what a thesis looks like, for I have never seen one from you. I guess you are just pretending to know what the word means, much like it appears you did with the words "faith" and "proof".
      Faith and proof are not compatible and never will be. They are mutually exclusive terms.
      If you aren't going to listen to me, why don't you go ask someone you trust? Like your priest, pastor, etc.?
      Let them explain it to you – the difference between faith and proof and how they are not the same, are not compatible, and cannot be used to reinforce the other.
      Then come back and apologize if you've got the balls for it. I'm not looking to win points here. I just want to know if you are serious about trying to argue. So far you do not appear to be all that serious. You need to learn about the words you are trying to use.
      But don't try that "evidence of things not seen" bullcrap. Faith is believing without real proof. Your mystical inner promptings are not proof. Proof would be testable and repeatable, and incontrovertible.
      Look up "incontrovertible" and tell me if you have any proof like that.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled

      I said I was wanting you to give an argument. You replied with "It's not hard to understand.
      I already addressed it when I said, "You are incorrect in assuming I need you to do anything in particular.
      If you want to pretend the language we are using doesn't matter, that's your prerogative."

      How is that an *argument* that I have to accept the sense of the terms you want? Perhaps you should use a dictionary to define the word *argument* too because you clearly aren't getting it.

      You assert that I cherry pick definitions. In order for this to be true, you first need to show that I have to accept some other sense of the term (some other definition). That's why I keep asking you for an *argument* (look it up please).

      You say that my definitions cannot prove my point. But you're just asserting things without giving any reasons. It's clear that the definitions can support my point. Let me spell it out for you again:

      From dictionary.com:

      faith   
      [feyth] Show IPA
      –noun
      1.
      confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

      proof   
      [proof] Show IPA
      –noun
      1.
      evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

      So based on dictionary.com, I can have faith (confidence) in something because I have proof (evidence) for it.

      You assert, foolishly, that "Faith and proof are mutually exclusive by simple definition of each."

      But I've just proven you wrong.

      You say: "The common dictionary definitions of the words show them to be mutually exclusive."

      Is Dictionary.com not a "common dictionary" or are you just wrong? I suspect the latter.

      You say: "As for the "sense I want it to be held in", I never really pointed that out, did I? So where did you get this idea that I did?"

      Maybe you don't understand how a dictionary works. You see, a dictionary gives several senses to the terms because words are never used in a singular way. Words always have different senses because, roughly, the meaning of terms is given by the intention of the speaker. That's why when you look up the word "faith" at dictionary.com you will see a number 1 and a number 2 and a number 3. These are different senses of the term... maybe you didn't know that.

      You want to me take faith in sense number 2 (of dictionary.com), but why? Why isn't that just cherry picking on YOUR part? That's why I keep asking you for an argument.

      But I think you know all this and you're just playing dumb to act like I haven't made my point. That's fine, I can go all day 😉

      You say: "massive, glaring errors in logic using YOUR selections."

      Where are my errors in logic? Specifically, which laws of logic have I violated? Did improperly formulate a modus ponens or did I contradict myself? Which law did I violate? In fact, you have no idea what you're talking about do you?

      You say: "And you have no idea what a thesis looks like, for I have never seen one from you."

      My thesis is that faith and proof are compatible because faith is a confidence or trust that something is the case because of the evidence (proof) that one has access to.

      If that's not a thesis, why don't you explain how.

      You say (numerous times): "Faith and proof are not compatible and never will be. They are mutually exclusive terms."

      When you keep asserting it without backing it up you just make yourself look like the fundy atheist pounding on his pulpit.

      You say: "I'm not looking to win points here."

      Obviously you are, and I've called you out on it when you first tried this definition tactic by saying "psychologize" isn't a real word.... LOL.

      That's why you said about an hour ago that you were going to ignore me. But you haven't, because you can't stand the thought of losing a point. You've already admitted to Laughing that your posts are deteriorating. The fact is, they were never in a more presentable shape to begin with.

      You say: "So far you do not appear to be all that serious. You need to learn about the words you are trying to use."

      I'm not sure if you're giving yourself a pep-speech or if you're trying to be funny by directing this at me.

      June 15, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Boggled

      Okay, if you want to avoid the common usage when speaking of religious faith, that's your prerogative.

      So you say, "My thesis is that faith and proof are compatible because faith is a confidence or trust that something is the case because of the evidence (proof) that one has access to."

      Fine. You win, man. That's not a religious definition of faith, though. That's a different form of "faith".

      This is the Belief Blog, a notoriously religion-themed blog where we discuss different aspects of religion.

      Religious faith is not what you are defining, so maybe you'd like to explain why you are even bothering to bring it up?
      "Confidence based on evidence" is not religious faith and never will be.

      Now it's your turn where you say, "But I have proof! I just can't share it with you!"
      Fine. Enjoy your fantasies.

      By the way, Lycidas / Mark, you aren't playing the part of a newcomer very well. A real kid would have responded differently, imho. You should take lessons on sympathy and empathy. You are too intellectually dishonest to hide what you really are....a dishonest prlck.

      (And now feel free to protest that you are someone else and make fun of me some more. You are so predictable that way.)

      Anyway, when you have some real proof, come on back and share it with us. We will gladly pick it to pieces as it deserves.

      I guess a "non-literalist" like you sees no problem in pretending that words don't matter while also saying the opposite.
      So, what now? Are you going to hijack my name again like a petulant kid now that I've called you out? Sheesh.
      People like you are pathetic. You can't do anything honestly and openly, can you?
      Sad.
      Have fun with the reply thing. I'm done responding to your sick, twisted troll-posts.

      June 15, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @ Boggled

      You say: "That's not a religious definition of faith, though. That's a different form of "faith"."

      Where is the emoticon for smacking your forehead?

      Look, you're just asserting that religious faith means you don't have0 evidence because that's what you want to believe. Or maybe you have reasons for asserting that that's the case, but you haven't given any reasons as to why anyone should believe this.

      That's what I keep asking for. You say religious faith must mean faith without reason, I'm asking why? Going to the dictionary wont help you as we've already seen. So either come up with a reason, say you were wrong and move on, or say "But I have proof! I just can't share it with you!" (as you put it).

      You say: "By the way, Lycidas / Mark, you aren't playing the part of a newcomer very well. A real kid would have responded differently, imho. You should take lessons on sympathy and empathy. You are too intellectually dishonest to hide what you really are....a dishonest prlck."

      I guess this means you think I'm someone called Lycidas/Mark... That's funny and I'm sure it would be fun to play along with this.

      You say: "(And now feel free to protest that you are someone else and make fun of me some more. You are so predictable that way.)"

      I protest. I'm someone else and I'm making fun of you by playing along with it all.

      You say: "Anyway, when you have some real proof, come on back and share it with us. We will gladly pick it to pieces as it deserves."

      In case you haven't noticed, lots of people have posted videos arguing for Christianity in some form or another. And a lot of books have been written on it. I don't see the benefit of me doing what you can do for yourself by going to the library.

      You say: "So, what now? Are you going to hijack my name again like a petulant kid now that I've called you out? Sheesh.
      People like you are pathetic. You can't do anything honestly and openly, can you?
      Sad.
      Have fun with the reply thing. I'm done responding to your sick, twisted troll-posts."

      Like I said, psychologize, psychologize... the number one tool of fundy atheists.

      June 15, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @IToldMeSo
      DICTIONARY.COM DEFINITION OF FAITH (YOU EMBELLISHED A BIT EARLIER)
      1) Confidence or trust in a person or thing
      2) Belief that is not based on proof
      3) belief in od or in the doctrine or teachings of religion
      4) belief in anything as a code of ethics, standards of merit etc.
      5) a system of religious belief
      6) the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement etc.
      7) the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance et.c
      8) Christian Theol. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved

      It is disingenuous to omit YOUR cited reference's definitions of faith as pertaining specifically to religion, which is what this whole bleeding board is about.

      Religious Faith requires the willful suspension of rational inquiry and critical thought.

      June 15, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • LinCA

      @iToldMeSo

      You said: "I don't see anyone *arguing* that what Al Mohler said makes him bigoted or was wrong either. Where is the *argument* for that? We just have the typical knee-jerk assertions. Read the comments here, the fundy atheists are just as bad as the fundy Christians they think they are attacking.

      Al Mohler said that he thinks Weiner would do better to follow his set of beliefs (which happen to be Christianity). Others, according to you, are "arguing" (read: asserting) that Mohler is wrong and he would do better to follow their set of (politically correct) beliefs."

      I was agruing that Mohler is a bigot. On June 14, 2011 at 6:35 pm, when replying to Nick, I wrote:
      "By saying: "Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective ‘treatment’ for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ." (emphasis added), he dismisses Weiner's religion by claiming that his own is the only way.

      That is textbook bigotry."
      See: https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/14/top-evangelical-to-anthony-weiner-try-jesus/comment-page-8/#comments

      You said: "The irony is that if Mohler is a bigot for calling on someone to adopt his beliefs, on the presumption that his beliefs are better and correct, then all the people whining about Mohler being wrong and (presumably) how he needs to change his actions/beliefs here are just putting their hypocrisy on display for everyone to see"
      I'm not asking anyone to change his/her beliefs. I challenge every believer to critically examine his/her beliefs. Actions, on the other hand, have consequences.

      June 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
  18. ibcthrive

    I'm jewish AND a sinner. I love Yeshua (aka Jesus). He is my jewish messiah, saviour and very present help in time of trouble. He has delivered me from the ego-centered slavery of lust and a thousand other ills. Baruch ha'schem & Shalom!!

    June 15, 2011 at 12:03 am |
    • leonard

      then your a babtist not jewish. jesus is just a myth .he was never real.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:48 am |
    • PRISM 1234

      Shalom, dear Friend ! ! So glad Yeshua is our Lord! Blessed is His Name forever! All creation cries out in joy at the mention of His Name!!!
      Hallelujah!!! 🙂

      June 15, 2011 at 1:00 am |
    • Ron

      A simple fact, if you claim to follow Jesus, you are not Jewish. I don't know how many times I've seen, met or read comments from the 'Jews for Jesus' group. I see it as a deception, purposefully done to confuse people.
      Jews for Jesus is for want to be Jewish Christians, nothing more.

      June 15, 2011 at 9:36 am |
    • PRISM 1234

      @Ron
      If anyone is confused, it's you, friend!

      June 15, 2011 at 10:09 am |
    • Free

      Ron
      There are Atheists for Jesus too, you know, but none for Christ. Once you separate the two it's easy to appreciate Jesus' wisdom and humanistic rendering of Judaism once you strip away the pagan misunderstanding of his actually, literally being a son of God. Jews taking him as just a rabbi see him as a liberal from the school of Hillel. (see link)

      http://theteachingsofjesus.blogspot.com/2006/09/jesus-was-rabbi-on-hillel-side.html

      June 15, 2011 at 10:22 am |
    • Boggled

      Christianity is a Jewish cult. Or hadn't anyone noticed that Jesus was supposed to be a Jew?
      But, no! Everyone saw Mel Gibson's movie and now cannot face the idea of Jesus being one of those "horrible" Jews!
      How easily they are brainwashed in religion! How simply they are fooled to believe whatever is said.
      And anyone can interpret the Bible any way they like. No proof needed that they even believe.
      The gullible are a sad lot. They never figure stuff out until it's too late.
      Deathbed atheists are quite common. The clarity of impending death is often enough to cut through the lies.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:22 am |
    • Free

      Boggled
      Remember also that the Bible was created hundreds of years after Jesus by selecting only the books that agreed with the Roman Christian tradition at that time. The same tradition that protestants say corrupted the original teachings of Jesus, but they raise the Bible up as a 'better' authority!

      June 15, 2011 at 10:33 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled

      Seriously? You think people think Jesus wasn't Jewish because of Mel Gibson's movie? Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

      Gibson's movie portrayed Jesus as Jewish with Jewish disciples. Every Christian knows Jesus was Jewish and that all of the early disciples were Jewish. It's sort of hard to miss that if you read the NT or the OT.

      Your comment here is representative of the intellectual depth most atheists operate at. They just have unfounded psychologizing about how religious people must think and then make unfounded conclusions based on their unfounded psychologizing.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:37 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Free:

      Actually the Bible (OT) was already recognized by the time Christianity started and the NT was "collected" immediately in the early church, starting with the writings of the epistles.

      They didn't select the books that they "wanted" but the books that accurately reflected the events and teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • Boggled

      "psychologizing" is not a real word, but I can guess what you're trying to say.
      If Gibson somehow failed to put in any anti-Semitism into his sick movie, I'd be very surprised. Perhaps you weren't looking for that sort of stuff, being traumatized by seeing raw physical violence against your fake messiah.
      Trauma is one of the strongest tools in the brainwashing handbook and we've all heard about how Gibson hates Jews.
      Answer me this:
      If you consider yourself the follower of a Jew, why aren't you following any of the Jewish traditions?
      Why pretend that the Old Testament is meaningless? Jesus probably wore a yarmulke. Why don't you?

      June 15, 2011 at 10:48 am |
    • Laughing

      As a Jew and a religion scholar and I can safely say that any person who claims to be a jew and thinks jesus is the messiah is by definition not a jew but a christ follower. Technically the first christians were jews who were christ followers, however if you believe jesus is the messiah then you believe he died for our sins and thus the torah is moot, which means you deny your jewish heritage for christianity. Any person who is a "jew for jesus" or clearly does not understand either religion and should just accept one another, because as of now they are shunned by both communities.

      June 15, 2011 at 11:28 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Laughing

      In the end, it comes down to how one is using their terms. Obviously a Christian isn't a Jew if by the term "Jew" we mean to refer to the contemporary religious practice of Judaism, such as an Orthodox Jew.

      But do you really think this is what any "Jewish Christian" intends to communicate when he/she says they are "Jewish"? No, obviously not. What they mean is something like the ethnic sense of the term or they have a historical-theological sense of the term in mind.

      June 15, 2011 at 11:49 am |
    • Laughing

      @iToldMeSo

      Wrong, wrong and even more wrong. Sorry but first of all, if you refer to yourself as a jew you imply the religious connotation, not the ethnic connotation. In most cases of "jews for Jesus" I'll bet 90% of them aren't even jewish by birth anyways, so throw that out the window. The real problem here is that they claim to be jewish because jesus was a jew and so they are following his ways, but if they were truely a christ follower, they would be an orthodox jew and believe jesus was a prophet, NOT the son of god, or god, or however else you the diety jesus is defined in todays standards. That in itself is an oxymoron though, because if they believe in the teachings of jesus then they are rejecting the old testement in all forms, its that simple. To claim to be a jew and then believe that jesus was who he says he was is not only illogical but also theologically wrong as well.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      Laughing,
      you can be a religious scholar, in fact you can be an ex-pert, but if you don't KNOW God, who by His Spirit reveals Himself to those who seek Him with humble hearts, you'll just be only that : a scholar of RELIGION, who knows much about IT, but NOT the God of truth Himslef!
      Every person who seeks to know God will come to knowledge who Christ Jesus is. There is NO GOD WITHOUTH CHRIST JESUS! HE is the revelation of invisible God Himself, who came to dec-lare Him, and ex-plain Him. But only those who truly sought Him recognized Him. That is the NATURE OF GOD: He reveals Himself to lowly, and humble of heart, but not to proud and arrogant, who are wise in their own eyes!
      If you ex-amined yourself, apart of your acc-umulated knowledge, and if you humbled your heart before Him, seeking HIM, not the head-knowledge, YOU WOULD COME TO THE SAME CO-NCL-USION!

      June 15, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
    • Laughing

      @PRISM 1234

      You really are one of my favorites on this board. You really believe that I haven't done a lot of introspection on this specific subject? You are right, I am a scholar of RELIGION and not just a specific type because part of my introspectation came in college when I was interested to know more about my religion as well as the religion of others. That's when I became very disillusioned to religion in general. It's all the same stuff with different names. Perfect example, take your most recent post and insert Mohammed, or Zoroaster, or Buddha or whatever and that's the same religion that your opponents are arguing for and yet it's two sides of the same coin. I really hope you take time to learn about your fellow man and try to discover why everyone hasn't found the same, oh so apparent truth that you seem so sure is there. If this truth you talk about is so clear and easy once you resign yourself to the fact that theres a god, then why is there so many religions in the world and why is yours the right one and theres is wrong? I can assure you that I'm a lot more well read on this subject than you are (religion in general, although I can probably assume that specifically on christianity you'd blow me out of the water). Your blind faith can be commended in that you really are loyal to your beliefs, but it's also outright appalling that you are so willingly corralled into believing in something invisible and not only not questioning its existance but trying to persuade others to "see" the same thing. It's really a shame.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Laughin

      I guess asserting "wrong" three times is what passes for religious scholarship nowadays?

      You say " if you refer to yourself as a jew you imply the religious connotation, not the ethnic connotation."

      Why don't you give me an argument to the effect that all persons must use the religious and not the ethnic connotation? Or am I supposed to just accept your assertion based on your "scholarship" and saying "wrong" three times?

      You say: "In most cases of "jews for Jesus" I'll bet 90% of them aren't even jewish by birth anyways, so throw that out the window."

      Is that based on any "scholarship" or did you just tell yourself that three times?

      You say: "if they were truely a christ follower, they would be an orthodox jew and believe jesus was a prophet, NOT the son of god, or god, or however else you the diety jesus is defined in todays standards."

      So only Orthodox Jews are Jews... Great, I guess the "no-true-scotsman" fallacy passes for "scholarship" too huh?

      You say: "That in itself is an oxymoron though, because if they believe in the teachings of jesus then they are rejecting the old testement in all forms, its that simple. To claim to be a jew and then believe that jesus was who he says he was is not only illogical but also theologically wrong as well."

      Gee, let my try your method of interaction and see how it works: Wrong, wrong, and even more wrong. If Jews believed the teaching of the Old Testament they would believe Jesus was the messiah. It's that simple. To claim to be a Jew and not believe Jesus is the messiah is not only logically wrong but theologically wrong.

      What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? 😉

      June 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Laughing

      You said to Prism: "You really believe that I haven't done a lot of introspection on this specific subject?"

      Based on your method of argument (asserting "wrong" three times like a toddler and then using informal logical fallacies) I'd say you have yet to show that you've done any introspection on this subject.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • Laughing

      @iToldMeSo

      Interesting that you attack the fact that my disagreement on 3 of your points is somehow not scholarship in any capcity. That aside lets get to it:

      You said, " Why don't you give me an argument to the effect that all persons must use the religious and not the ethnic connotation?", Let me explain, when someone says they are Christian, they do not imply their ethnic background they are claiming the religious aspect. Same with muslims and same with jews. Jews happen to be more of an ethnic group because of the exclusivity of the religion, but again, when most people say they are jewish they imply the religious aspect, not ethnic aspect. Pretty simple.

      You said "Is that based on any "scholarship" or did you just tell yourself that three times?" Again, with the attack on my religion background aside, clearly using percentages upset you, so I'll put it another way, the vast majority of jews for jesus are not connected to the jewish community other than claiming to be a part of it without going through the conversion process. If you can prove me wrong, shoe me the evidence, but over the years talking with friends who are jews for jesus, having even been to some of their services because of morbid fascination, I can say with relative certainty that you won't be able to prove me wrong.

      You say "So only Orthodox Jews are Jews... Great, I guess the "no-true-scotsman" fallacy passes for "scholarship" too huh?" I fail to see where I said only orthodox jews are jews, pretty sure you can look forever and never find I said that. However, since Jesus WAS an orhtodox jew and people who want to emulate jesus in all ways, logic says they would then also become orthodox instead of say, conservative, reform or recontructionist.

      You say "Gee, let my try your method of interaction and see how it works: Wrong, wrong, and even more wrong. If Jews believed the teaching of the Old Testament they would believe Jesus was the messiah. It's that simple. To claim to be a Jew and not believe Jesus is the messiah is not only logically wrong but theologically wrong."

      You poor fool, clearly your reading comprehension needs some work if you believe that Jews believing in the torah must all believe that jesus was the messiah. I'm confused how your comment actually works. You see, when jesus came, he nulled the old testement and claimed to be the messiah. The mishnah claims that when the messiah comes, a bunch of things will happen at once. All the dead will be raised, ALL of them, not just some. This means that had jesus been the messiah, zombies would plague the entire world, and I'm pretty sure if a bunch of dead people came back to life it would have been recorded in at least one place. Secondly, the messiah will ride on a white horse through a cemetary in Jerusalem and bring all the synagogues in the world to the promised land, brick by brick. Considering my synagogue down the block is still there and hasn't moved, something tells me that didn't happen either.

      I urge you most of all to actually take your head out of the sand and actually do some scholarship of your own before making dumb comments. THANKS!

      What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?

      June 15, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
    • Laughing

      Really iToldMeSo, Really? out of my entire response to PRISM all you got out of it was that apparently all my searching and studying has been wrong because you disagree with me and insert that my thought is fallacy. I guess it makes sense in a weird way though, I can see that you believe that if everyone disagrees with you, you must be right and everyone wrong...... and you call me the child.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Laughing

      You say: "Really iToldMeSo, Really? out of my entire response to PRISM all you got out of it was that apparently all my searching and studying has been wrong because you disagree with me and insert that my thought is fallacy."

      Like I said, you have yet to show that you've done any introspection on this subject.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Laughing

      By the way, I responded to your other comment too, but it posted on the next page.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • Boggled

      Laughing, I wasn't sure what to make of you at first, but I see you are worthy of the "Laughing" name I once used.
      (Great posts, btw.)

      June 15, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled:

      I see what your modus operandi is: If you can't beat them, go cheer on your buddies.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
    • Boggled

      Read my words and weep, iToldMeSo. I am not avoiding you.
      However, it is pretty late here and well past my bedtime, so don't expect me to hold your hand all day, okay?
      If I don't respond, it's because I'm not here, not because of some "modus operandi" you think I have, k?
      And if I want to spread some thanks around, what business is it of yours?
      Hell, what, if anything, makes you think you're right about your beliefs in the first place?
      If your faith is so strong, then why do you feel the need to defend it?
      If your faith is weak, why threaten what little you have by coming here?
      The strongest faith is unthinking faith. No arguments are needed or desired.
      The weakest faith is that held by clever lads like yourself. Your intelligence is a very real threat to your faith.
      And, just in case you didn't know, I don't have to prove anything to you, just as you don't have to prove anything to me.
      We can discuss things easily enough, but not if we can't agree on the language and the importance of speaking clearly.
      To speak clearly, one must have a good enough vocabulary to express whatever it is you are trying to express.
      And a good vocabulary means you can't pretend the definitions don't matter. They do. Otherwise we might as well send smoke signals or speak in "tongues".
      Discussion, argument, etc. is predicated upon being able to communicate in some way.
      If you don't want to be understood, then keep flinging stuff around like it doesn't matter to you if you're accurate or logical.
      Don't worry, we'll figure it out once we're done deciphering your "mystic" words and manner of speaking.

      June 15, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • PRISM 1234

      @laughing
      Glad to see you say my posts are your favorite ones. Although I very well know the way you meant it, glad you read them anyway!
      And since you did, it's no need for me to go much into any discussions with you, because I believe that in my posts I explain myself very well .
      But I do want to post something here for you so you can ponder it in your heart and think about. See what these words are saying to you, and look at yourself as you read them....

      " My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
      For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

      God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.

      "These things we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
      But the natural man DOES NOT RECIEVE the things of the Spirit of God, for THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS to him, nor can he know them, because they are SPIRITULY discerned.

      But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."

      See where you with all the knowledge you gathered fit in those verses......

      They come from the Word of God whom I know, and whom you THINK that you can comprehend apart from His Spirit!

      And just a few more things I want to mention to you....The assumptions you wrote about me , my faith and convictions, are totally amiss, but the verses above which I posted for you explain WHY! I also want to point out to you that those leaders/founders of the world's religions you mentioned are all dead! Their tombs are well known and even held as sacred shrines by their followers. But Christ's tomb is empty! He is risen, for the death itself could not hold Him.
      And finally, friend... you seem very confident of your knowledge your gathered through your years of studies, it almost seems that it is your point of pride..... But one thing is needed, only one thing: to seek God with your whole heart, to know Him, to love Him, and to walk humbly before Him.... To this kind of person He will give wisdom that no books of this world could contain, because He is the one who is the author of all wisdom.
      Man searches and searches, but on his own never finds, because God has designed it that way that He will be found only by those who are willing to deny their own self, throwing aside every earthly wisdom, and in humility of their hearts seek Him so that they may be found of Him. That's just the way it is, friend, and I truly believe that you won't understand the things I'm talking about, unless you see the truth in things I'm saying to you! Otherwise, it is you who are in sad predicament, and not me as you assumed about me, because my faith is built on something which you by all your studies and your human intelligence will never be able to grasp nor comprehend! But I have this hope that the Word of God will bring light into your wanderings, and you will begin to see the truth, and be set free by God of f truth who is not shrouded in darkness, except to those who are wandering on their own, being stubborn and not willing to come to Him on HIS terms, not theirs... because HE IS THE LORD!

      June 15, 2011 at 8:38 pm |
  19. FairGarden

    Americans, without Jesus, there isn't any difference in any belief systems though your immorality is still the worst way of living. Live out the religiou equasions you have been claiming all along, living in sin and boasting all about it. But know that you all go to hell without Jesus. Your filth cannot save you.

    June 14, 2011 at 11:51 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Provide proof, please.

      June 14, 2011 at 11:57 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @FairGarden

      Watch!

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

      If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the diseases that have caused and are causing so much death and misery for humans and animals. He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and blood flukes. And worms that bore into a child's eye.

      How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. And if god didn't create them, who did?

      Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the pathogens and the parasites that have caused so much human death and misery.

      If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.

      If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.

      If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason god allows so much suffering in the world. We can dump the guilt trip.

      If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.

      If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is a based on a false premise.

      If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible.

      If we evolved, there is no soul –> no afterlife –> Heaven and Hell are pure fantasy.

      LOL, which is why the Evangelicals fight so hard against evolution.

      Evolution is the Christian god's Achilles' heel.

      The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes.

      Cheers!

      June 15, 2011 at 12:35 am |
    • LinCA

      @David Johnson

      You lost FairGarden at: "@FairGarden".

      June 15, 2011 at 12:42 am |
    • wriZoNg!

      David Johnson:
      WRONG AGAIN! 😉

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nJl3dF7xKc&w=640&h=390]

      June 15, 2011 at 1:48 am |
    • wriZoNg!

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8P-V3Iqxk&w=640&h=390]

      June 15, 2011 at 1:50 am |
    • David Johnson

      @wriZoNg!

      The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987, representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. – Wikipedia

      To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed. – Wikipedia

      Weep all you want. Show videos of idiot creationists trying to dispute evolution. Do you really think that all these scientists are wrong, or trying to deceive everyone? I'm thinking not.

      Evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on this planet. Not a god.

      Evolution has shown god to be irrelevant.

      Cheers!

      June 15, 2011 at 10:10 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @David:

      All you've done is give an argumentum ad populum: "Do you really think that all these scientists are wrong, or trying to deceive everyone? I'm thinking not."

      Of course this same kind of narrow minded argumentum ad populum could have been used by *any* person during any past scientific framework in order to shut out debate from opposing view points. If people followed your method, we would all be stuck believing in the ptolemiac system!

      Apparently the "Do you really think all those scientists are wrong" spiel would have been sufficient to keep us believing in Ptolemy if you think it's a sufficient reply to ID theorists.

      And many Christians believe in both God and evolution. In fact, many ID theorists (that you would label "creationists") argue for God and evolution (just not what they call Darwinism). So I'm sure they'd love to hear your argument that evolution and God somehow don't mix.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:51 am |
    • Boggled

      Science is not a popularity contest. Your accusations fall rather flat as a consequence.

      June 15, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Boggled:

      You didn't indicate who you are responding to, so I'm not sure if you meant that to be directed to me or not.

      If you meant for it to be directed at me, then you just missed the point of my post since I was making the same exact claim.

      If you didn't mean for it to be directed at me, then I'm glad you agree with me on something 😉

      June 15, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • Boggled

      I was talking to you, iToldMeSo.
      Science is peer-reviewed, independently tested, and modified whenever it is warranted to better reflect a more accurate understanding of the facts.
      It is not a popularity contest, where any majority can simply vote away the truth by worthless fiat.
      So your characterization of the scientists David Johnson was alluding to is a false characterization, and, as your whole post is based upon this false equivalency, it fails to make any valid point...and falls flat on it's face.
      Is that clear enough for you?

      June 15, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • FairGarden

      I do not let facts get in the way. Just believe in Jesus.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:22 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @FairGarden

      Nice trolling.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @iToldMeSo

      You said: "All you've done is give an argumentum ad populum"

      Not the same thing. This is not a popularity contest. The scientists work in several fields – biology, paleontology, anthropology and others. Each of these, use the scientific method. A scientific theory must explain all relevant facts, and be contradicted by none. It isn't a matter of faith or belief. It is a matter of empirical evidence. Scientists working in these different disciplines, all agree that the evidence shows life on earth evolved. Its not just an "I believe" situation.

      You said: "And many Christians believe in both God and evolution. In fact, many ID theorists (that you would label "creationists") argue for God and evolution (just not what they call Darwinism). So I'm sure they'd love to hear your argument that evolution and God somehow don't mix."

      There are some denominations that have embraced evolution, as the way god created all the "kinds" of life on earth. This is a white flag. It is an attempt to keep their god alive. The bible is either the inerrant word of god or it isn't. The Creation Story is extremely important to Christianity. The need for a Redeemer is established in the Adam and Eve story. If man evolved, then this is a fairy tale. Evolution and the Creation Story, are not compatible. If evolution is accepted, then why stick a god into the mix? There is no evidence that He is needed.

      In order for Creationism (Intelligent Design) to be true, these areas of science would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history.

      Source: Wikipedia
      "The scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific, pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

      To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine Pubmed. -Wikipedia

      So, ID theorists, that I would label Creationists, have only belief and faith to support their "theory" – Actually, Intelligent Design cannot meet the requirements necessary to be a scientific theory. It is crap. *smile*

      US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases. – Wikipedia

      Courts have decided that the EVIDENCE is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.

      I'm sorry, iToldMeSo. There is no Santa or a god.

      Cheers!

      Cheers!

      June 15, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
    • Boggled

      David Johnson, I salute you, sir!
      And I see my posts are deteriorating while you appear to be wide awake, so I'll probably head off to bed soon.
      Cheers!

      June 15, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @ David Johnson

      All you've done in your latest reply is explain that scientists do empirical research. They are supposed to base their claims on reasons and evidence.

      But that doesn't get you off the hook for an argumentum ad populum. You didn't appeal to any facts, reasons, or evidence, you appealed to the populum. So you'll need to try again.

      You say: "The bible is either the inerrant word of god or it isn't. The Creation Story is extremely important to Christianity. The need for a Redeemer is established in the Adam and Eve story. If man evolved, then this is a fairy tale."

      Much like every other atheist on this forum, you're just making unfounded assertions when what you need are arguments. Come on, David, I thought atheists were supposed to be the rational ones!? Why are you guys doing so poorly here?

      Why don't you give me an argument to the effect that evolution entails the creation story is a fairy tale, such that the Bible is errant (ignoring the fact that some Christians believe the Bible is errant and so you would actually need another argument to the effect that if the Bible is errant then God must not exist).

      You say: "Evolution and the Creation Story, are not compatible."

      Where is your argument?

      You say: "If evolution is accepted, then why stick a god into the mix? There is no evidence that He is needed."

      You're confusing "evolution" with Darwinism, the idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient explanations for all of life. But of course most ID theorists accept evolution (and even Darwinism on a small scale), they just reject that it is sufficient to explain all of life.

      And to think that God only explains the development and/or origin of life is rather misguided as well. Theist's claim God is also necessary to explain morality and other phenomena, like consciousness.

      You say: "In order for Creationism (Intelligent Design) to be true, these areas of science would be largely false: evolutionary biology, paleobiology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, paleontology, archeology, historical geology, zoology, botany, and biogeography, plus much of early human history."

      How so? The only thing that needs to be false that Darwinism explains all of life in its development and origin.

      You say: "So, ID theorists, that I would label Creationists, have only belief and faith to support their "theory""

      You assert this after quoting wikipedia on evolution. I've already said how that's a mistaken notion of ID theory. ID Theory doesn't necessarily call into question evolution, so you can give quotes on the establishment of evolution till you blue in the face, it just shows that you haven't even grasped the debate.

      You say: "Actually, Intelligent Design cannot meet the requirements necessary to be a scientific theory. It is crap. *smile*"

      No it's not. *smile*. Of course, if you'd like to rise above asserting your right and patting yourself on the back you're more than welcome.

      You say: "I'm sorry, iToldMeSo. There is no Santa or a god."

      You still have yet to demonstrate any logical entailment from evolution to God. Even if we were to say, hypothetically, that evolution disproved the God of the Bible, how would it logically entail *no* god? Where is the argument for that?

      Not surprisingly, Boggled salutes your sloppy thinking.

      June 15, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @iToldMeSo

      You said: "All you've done in your latest reply is explain that scientists do empirical research. They are supposed to base their claims on reasons and evidence.
      But that doesn't get you off the hook for an argumentum ad populum. You didn't appeal to any facts, reasons, or evidence, you appealed to the populum. So you'll need to try again."

      You said: "They (scientists) are ***supposed*** to base their claims on reason and evidence.

      Not, supposed to, they must. If not, then when they submit their hypothesis for peer review, they would be laughed at and discredited. Nothing is taken on faith in science. Evidence is king. Science and reason have been shown to be the best predictors of how the world functions. Science and reason aren’t perfect, but they are self-correcting — using the scientific method. "

      There are at least eleven areas of study and empirical data supporting the Theory of Evolution. They are:
      • Paleontology (fossils)
      • Distribution of Animals and Plants
      • Comparative Anatomy
      • Embryology
      • Vestigial Organs
      • Genetics
      • Natural Selection
      • $exual Selection
      • Molecular Biology
      • Bad Design
      • Lab Experiments
      Life is a process. Not a design.

      You said: "Why don't you give me an argument to the effect that evolution entails the creation story is a fairy tale, such that the Bible is errant (ignoring the fact that some Christians believe the Bible is errant and so you would actually need another argument to the effect that if the Bible is errant then God must not exist)."

      As I pointed out, some denominations have accepted evolution. Some have tried to show how a day was not a 24 hour day, but could have been eons of time. But, if you start to disbelieve some of the bible...which parts are you sure of? Are you allowed to pick and choose?

      "If the fundamental historical value of Genesis is called into question, and if therefore there was no first pair created by God and who disobeyed and “fell”—as the argument goes—you are not far from questioning how Jesus’ crucifixion can really be about reversing a fall that never happened." – The BioLogos Foundation » Science & the Sacred

      You said: "You're confusing "evolution" with Darwinism, the idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient explanations for all of life. But of course most ID theorists accept evolution (and even Darwinism on a small scale), they just reject that it is sufficient to explain all of life."

      Intelligent Design people, are forced to accept microevolution, because of all the evidence such as germs and insects that "evolve" to become resistent. It is macroevolution that they fight against. You forgot to mention that.

      Intelligent Design people, act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

      Evolution has come a long way in 150 years, and Darwin, while a brilliant scientist, got plenty of things wrong. We
      have since gotten many of them right.

      You said: "And to think that God only explains the development and/or origin of life is rather misguided as well. Theist's claim God is also necessary to explain morality and other phenomena, like consciousness."

      Those are other arguments for the existence of god. You would also lose those debates. But this discussion is about evolution vs. the Creation Story in Genesis. Morality and consciousness do not demand a redeemer. The biblical story of original sin does.

      You said: "ID Theory doesn't necessarily call into question evolution, so you can give quotes on the establishment of evolution till you blue in the face, it just shows that you haven't even grasped the debate."

      I answered that above. Creationists believe in microevolution, because they must. They do not realize, (do not want to acknowledge) that microevolution is just a component of macroevolution. You are trying to be deceptive with your use of the word evolution. And subst_ituting the term Darwinism for macroevolution. In science, nothing is sacred. Darwinism as a term implies that evolution is somehow a personal ideology, rather than a systematic approach to solving problems. Some have even labeled Darwinism a religion. Evolution is not a religion. It is as much a theory as relativity. But relativity is not attacked by the Evangelicals, because relativity does not threaten their god. LOL

      You still have yet to demonstrate any logical entailment from evolution to God. Even if we were to say, hypothetically, that evolution disproved the God of the Bible, how would it logically entail *no* god? Where is the argument for that?

      We were discussing the Christian god and the veracity of the bible. If the bible cannot be counted on to be true, then neither can the Christian god be believed in. Would a collection of Grimms Fairy Tales be used to establish anything as fact?

      The reason why we can find no empirical evidence for God's existence is not because "God is a magical being completely able to hide from us." It is because God is imaginary.

      I grow weary of this. I won't respond to further posts. Evolution is a scientific theory on a par with the theory of gravity. Creationism (even dressed up Creationism), has no evidence to back it up. Nothing. As I said before, Scientists and the courts, believe Intelligent Design is crap. Science finds no need for the supernatural.

      The Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      Cheers!

      June 16, 2011 at 1:43 am |
    • zeie

      Instead of typing a wall of tl;dr...

      @all creationist Christians – shut up, lern2science

      June 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
  20. Reality

    The "Reverend" Mohler should look within:----------

    From: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1855948_1861760_1862212,00.html#ixzz0jg0lEyZj

    “Facing calls to curb child se-x abuse within its churches, in June the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest U.S. religious body after the Catholic Church — urged local hiring committees to conduct federal background checks but rejected a proposal to create a central database of staff and clergy who have been either convicted of or indicted on charges of molesting minors. The SBC decided against such a database in part because its principle of local autonomy means it cannot compel individual churches to report any information. And while the headlines regarding churches and ped-ophilia remain largely focused on Catholic parishes, the lack of hierarchical structure and systematized record-keeping in most Protestant churches makes it harder not only for church leaders to impose standards, but for interested parties to track allegations of abuse."

    June 14, 2011 at 11:45 pm |
    • iToldMeSo

      @Reality:

      What makes you think Mohler hasn't "looked withing"? And isn't this just a tu quoque? Mohler's statement to Weiner isn't premised on the idea that Christians or the SBC is perfect. Mohler's statement is premised on the idea that people are sinners who need Jesus... so your exhortation to "look within" misses the point.

      June 15, 2011 at 10:45 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
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.