home
RSS
November 19th, 2011
11:21 AM ET

In video, White House shooting suspect calls himself 'modern-day Jesus'

By Mariano Castillo and Greg Botelho, CNN

(CNN) - Weeks before his arrest on a charge of attempting to assassinate President Barack Obama, an Idaho man taped a video pitch for Oprah Winfrey - expressing his contempt for government, offering secrets to solving global problems and proclaiming himself to be "the modern-day Jesus Christ."

The video, released Friday to CNN by Idaho State University, features a man dressed in all black, with brown hair, a beard and a crucifix hanging around his neck.

"My name is Oscar Ortega from Idaho Falls, Idaho, and I feel like I am the perfect candidate to get cast on your show because not only do I have a solution to make a huge impact on this world with small changes to our daily lives, I also have with me the answer to worldwide peace," he states.

The previous Friday, a witness in Washington described to investigators hearing about "eight sounds of popping noise" and seeing "puffs of air" from a car that was registered to Ortega. One bullet hit a window on the White House but was stopped by bulletproof glass, the Secret Service said, while another was found on the White House exterior.

Read the full story here.
- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Violence

soundoff (524 Responses)
  1. Jessica

    On this site, you have the right to obtain your creidt report free once a year. So, if you want to check your creidt reports throughout the year, ask for a free one from a different agency every 4 months.

    June 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  2. Michael Jackson (a Muslim convert and a Martyr)

    US governmental agents killed Michael Jackson for his conversion to Islam. Michael converted secretly to Islam earlier in 2007 but unfortunately, Neil Syson spread a rumor to make his conversion complicated for the people to believe. That was all fabricated to give the image that MJ’s conversion was a lie. But we know when you simply say that Jesus is the prophet of God, bingo, you’re a Muslim…

    January 2, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • A Little Help

      To become a Muslim I think you have to at least add the there is but one God, and Mohammed is his prophet. The bit about Jesus is optional. Not that I would know...

      January 2, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
  3. WALKINGLASS

    All government officials are of the EVIL ONE according to the inspired words of God in the Holy Bible BUT Jesus NEVER told ANYONE to kill anybody for any reason.

    Governments kill each other.

    Put you life in God's hands and He can protect and serve you unless your faith is to weak to believe that.

    December 5, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
  4. Mike from CT

    Part 2

    1) All creation requires a creator, there is no known exception
    2) Nothing has never created something. This argument will appeal to those who think that intentionality is a characteristic of propositions, that there are a lot of propositions, and that intentionality or aboutness is dependent upon mind in such a way that there couldn't be something p about something where p had never been thought of.

    November 29, 2011 at 9:02 am |
  5. Mike from CT

    Tom,
    PS, what is your phone number? I want to call jerk the weasel while you say dirty things.

    November 28, 2011 at 8:41 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      1 800 BITE ME

      November 28, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      That was not me, the one problem with this site.

      November 29, 2011 at 8:44 am |
  6. David Johnson was saying that Darwin and some Scientists are nothing but big d!cks

    "There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus"

    @DJ

    Is there any witnesses when a one celled-palnts turned itself into godzilla-> barney-> to chetah (tarzan's pet/sidekick)-–> darwin?

    November 25, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • David Johnson was saying that Darwin and some Scientists are nothing but big d!cks

      *one-celled plant

      November 25, 2011 at 10:19 am |
  7. A-Omega

    Once again, anything that casts Christianity in a negative light gets thrown up on the Belief Blog. Where are the blogs on the hundreds and hundreds of videos posted on the web by Muslim suicide bombers and terrorists who feel they are doing their acts on behalf of Allah?

    This man is disturbed and has nothing to do with Christianity. No true Christian would call themselves Jesus Christ. But he certainly provides good inspiration to doubt the Christian faith and bring on those who hate God.

    November 23, 2011 at 3:39 am |
  8. hippypoet

    i wanna see the modern day jesus take one for the team and get nailed to a cross again... i bet half way thru he admitts to it all being a lie – i mean religion... of course he is the real jesus – DUH!

    November 22, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
  9. Observer

    Mike from CT,
    "The bible does condemn abortion, when you hold the belief that life begins at conception."

    Not true. First of all the Bible NEVER mentions abortion. When it does talk about a fetus being killed, the punishment is a FINE. For a person being hurt, the Bible says "an eye for an eye". Pretty straightforward.

    November 22, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Quite so. There are always hordes of self-aggrandizing "Christians" who attempt to pretend the Bible says something it doesn't, just to further their agenda.

      November 22, 2011 at 7:19 pm |
    • A-Omega

      " 22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him;" –Leviticus 21

      Nice try. The law for ancient Israel was that a man who harmed a pregnant woman and killed the baby would be punished according to the husband's discretion. Which leaves room for all sorts of punishment.

      The Bible is clear that life begins in conception. God states: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee," – Jeremiah 1. God personally forms us and makes us in the womb. And we are told time and time again in the Bible not to kill. The killing of a pregnant woman's unborn baby, is the death of a human in God' eyes. A human who He personally gave life to.

      Furthermore, the killing of babies was one of the sins that drew the worst of God's punishment on a nation.

      You do not have to believe the Bible. That is your choice. But to say it is silent on abortion or does not take the killing of babies seriously is just false.

      November 23, 2011 at 3:48 am |
    • Mike from ct

      I would also add that since we believe that life begins in the womb the sixth commandment and jesus explaination of it in Matthew 5

      November 23, 2011 at 9:09 am |
  10. english 101

    Ummmm (stop guessing buddy)

    does PART = low tide. help me out here. Is science always right? Doesnt science come across events they can't explain?

    Ummmm (stop guessing)

    November 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Brian

      http://www.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/SI/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=264282

      Why don't you tell us English 101.

      November 22, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  11. Observer

    Mike from CT,

    Please explain the "law giving" in the Bible which supports slavery, the inferiority of women, discrimination against the handicapped, and hypocritically talks about using incest to populate the earth twice.

    November 22, 2011 at 10:23 am |
    • Mike from CT

      I will try my best by God's grace.

      As for Slavery, we need to understand the difference between the servitude and life of the Middle Eastern slave vs. The West-British-African slave trade. One is out of servitude and the need to be provided for and the other out of oppression and hatred.

      As for slavery you have Wilberforce and the rest of the congregation giving all they have to abolish the British slave trade. So when you misread Philemon and see that Paul ask for the owner to take his slave back you miss the points also how slaves should be treated.

      As for woman, John 4and throughout the gospel Jesus interactions for women is unprecedented. You have the first witnesses of the resurrection being the woman who with the disciples. So don't take the organization of the Corinthian church to imply inferior but specific roles for woman.

      handicapped– The blind, the cripple hand, the lame, the mute, the leprous all healed and free by the power of Christ. Willing to engage those the society has refused.

      As for incest, well how would you populate a world with only about 7 people on it? Or are you referring to Lot's daughters, then I would ask that you not confuse historical account with acceptance of behavior.

      Hope that all helps, one recommendation if you go back and read the Gospels is to focus on Jesus not on the religious ruling parties or even the disciples until the day of Pentecost. You will see Jesus' correction in John James and even Peter.

      November 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
    • Observer

      Mike from CT,

      Sorry, but you didn't answer any of the questions.
      The difference between slavery and servants is irrelevent when you are talking about how it's okay to beat them if you don't kill them.
      The Bible gave frequent examples of the inferiority of women such as not being allowed to instruct men.
      The Bible says that God doesn't want disfigured or handicapped people in his church.
      If God could create one man and make women from him, God could have created another man (and apparently did in Nod).

      Everyone is free to decide for themselves the meaning of life. This does not, however, make everyone free to discriminate and deprive others of equal rights and especially when they just pick and choose from the Bible. (Did you ever hear any Christians quoting the Golden Rule when trashing gays?). Unfortunately, this is often the case with Christians who discriminate against gays or fantasize that the Bible says it condemns abortion, for instance.

      November 22, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      First and foremost,
      Let me apologize for all the "Christians you have come across that have twisted the bibles to serve there own agenda, apparently you have come across a few.

      "The difference between slavery and servants is irrelevent when you are talking about how it's okay to beat them if you don't kill them."– I think the difference is relevant since western slavery didn't even have this rule.

      "The Bible gave frequent examples of the inferiority of women such as not being allowed to instruct men." - I know only one, and this is talking about headship in the church, and order something I agree is in the scriptures. This is not women are inferior. It goes along the lines of woman have a significant different role to play as females.

      "The Bible says that God doesn't want disfigured or handicapped people in his church."– I need a reference, unless you are referring to leprous in the OT. Compare that to Jesus healing in the temple.

      "If God could create one man and make women from him, God could have created another man (and apparently did in Nod)." What you are saying is only your way is the way, very dangerous. I ask this for self examination. When you were younger did you ever do anything you look back on and say boy that was dumb. Me too. We make horrible gods.

      "Everyone is free to decide for themselves the meaning of life. This does not, however, make everyone free to discriminate and deprive others of equal rights and especially when they just pick and choose from the Bible"
      True, and those that have it incorrect, including believers in Christ, should seek correction. For while we are all free we are not all correct.

      Now on to hom-o-se-xuality, the bible does condemn it, Romans 1:about vs 20 forward. The bible does condemn abortion, when you hold the belief that life begins at conception. The Bible does condemn discrimination and trashing other people who have committed these sins (violation of God's law). Have you not read "he who is without sin cast the first stone?"

      November 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
    • Steve

      Observer-Welcome to the New Testament where all men are equal in the eyes of God-no black/brown/red/white discrimination. ReadGalations 3:28 to understand that all are equal in the sight of God.
      Believers are not here to judge anyone , they know the greatest principle to be applied is in extending Grace to another, just as they had received unmerited Grace from the Almighty God himself.
      A believer is taught to love everyone equally, however, they cannot accept a lifestyle that is scripturally wrong.
      You can spend your valuable time on this planet earth arguing semantics around Slave/Servant/Employee whatever, we all have an appointment with our creator one day at which time the argument is definetely not going to be around whether or not we had mastered the argument slavery/servitutde/employee. As far as reading the old testament the bible is very clear on employer/employee relationship-read also Exodus 21:16

      November 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
    • Reality

      The OT/Toray in the 21st century:

      origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.

      New Torah For Modern Minds

      “Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

      Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.

      The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.

      The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

      The NT in the 21st century:

      Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations (or “mythicizing” from P, M, M, L and J) and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a ma-mzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). An-alyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Ludemann, Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, ) via the NT and related doc-uments have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

      The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hitt-ites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

      earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

      November 22, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • Reality

      Make that "OT/Torah in the 21st century.

      November 22, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • Observer

      Steve,

      "Welcome to the New Testament." Good. So now we don't need to hear anything more about the old laws like the Ten Commandments.

      November 22, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • Observer

      Mike from CT,
      "The difference between slavery and servants is irrelevent when you are talking about how it's okay to beat them if you don't kill them."– I think the difference is relevant since western slavery didn't even have this rule."

      Nope. Doesn't matter one tiny bit if they were slaves or servants. The Bible says you can beat them as long as you don't kill them. That doesn't hack it.

      November 22, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
    • Observer

      Mike from CT,

      God doesn't want handicapped people in his church according to the Bible.

      – Leviticus 21:16-23 “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron, saying, 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the Lord’s offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the food of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that he will not profane My sanctuaries. For I
      am the Lord who sanctifies them.’”

      November 22, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "IF you believe life begins at conception." And if you don't? Where's there any indication in the Bible that god does? And spare me the "I knew you in your mother's womb." Heard it. That could mean moments before birth.

      November 22, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      O,
      maybe you missed that, but I stated that if you were going to pull out – Leviticus law, compare it to Jesus treatment of the handicap.

      November 23, 2011 at 9:18 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Reality, Since you didn't respond the last time I will re-post

      Using your standard from past post...

      "since there is only one source" of this,ny times article, on the web and not found in any other report it would be deemed false.

      Still waiting for you to explain which "only about 30% of Jesus" is the REAL parts?

      [audio src="http://www.bringyou.to/CraigCrossanDebate.mp3" /]

      November 23, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • Bob

      Mike, some reading for you in return:

      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

      Hard to make any claims about your jeebus-on-a-stick guy, when the primary reference about him, the sicko Christian bible, contradicts itself about him.

      November 23, 2011 at 9:27 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Bobby,
      How have you been?

      I love the skeptics annotated bible. I find it very fair in there ability to let both sides present their selves while drawing to the readers' attention the difficult bible passages.

      It fairly allows people to link to sites like
      http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/answering.htm

      November 23, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's

      Good God almighty. I just now read this sniveling drivel from you, Mike CT. Really, idiot, pray to your God for a brain, preferably one that can absorb an education as to the difference between "they're", "their", and "there".

      Thanks in advance, you puling f* ck wit.

      November 28, 2011 at 10:36 pm |
  12. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Chard? Come out, come out wherever you are...

    Why is it you can't manage to answer the questions I posed to you?

    Why is it you let your sock-puppets Martina and Modecatia do your work for you?

    Is it because you have no balls?

    November 21, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yup, that must be it. You're a eunuch.

      November 21, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • TL

      @TTPS

      Was there a valid question you posted?

      November 21, 2011 at 11:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yes, there were several. Chard just doesn't have the guts to answer them. Or he can't.

      November 22, 2011 at 8:14 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Tom what is your issue. Chad presents a common argument that has won over several people and has yet to be disputed. Let me try from a different angle.

      Do you believe there are things people are doing that they should stop doing regardless of what they believe?

      If you answer no, then you have no ground to argue that the way muslims treat their woman is wrong or right, because it would be relative to the culture

      If you say no, then you have to accept slavery was then never wrong because it was relative to the time.

      If you say no, then Hitler believed he was making the world a better place with his super race.

      But hopefully you will not say no and realize that when you say "You ought to [do or do not do something]" you are appealing to a law outside yourself. If our morals are not from time, culture or preservation and exist outside ourselves then they are objective moral laws, which requires a law giver outside ourselves.

      November 22, 2011 at 9:14 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And you suffer from the same inability to distinguish fact from opinion as your little pal. There is no evidence that there must be a 'law giver" for people to have morals. You assume that if there are moral absolutes, that must mean there's some god making them for us. That is an assumption not based on any fact whatsoever.

      November 22, 2011 at 9:29 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, and really, "yet to be disputed"? Where you do get this nonsense? Of course it's been 'disputed'.

      The statement that people don't have morals without there being some supreme being is simply nothing but your opinion-not a fact.

      November 22, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's pretty funny to see you use slavery as an example of "wrong", when your god and your bible had no problem with slavery. How do you explain that, Mike?

      November 22, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • Mike from CT

      I will try my best by God's grace.

      As for Slavery, we need to understand the difference between the servitude and life of the Middle Eastern slave vs. The West-British-African slave trade. One is out of servitude and the need to be provided for and the other out of oppression and hatred.

      As for slavery you have Wilberforce and the rest of the congregation giving all they have to abolish the British slave trade. So when you misread Philemon and see that Paul ask for the owner to take his slave back you miss the points also how slaves should be treated.

      I would ask that you not confuse historical account with acceptance of behavior.

      November 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      Please tell us Tom,

      "There is no evidence that there must be a 'law giver" for people to have morals"
      Then where do morals come from.

      If you say society then society is your law giver
      If you say Parents then Parents is your law giver

      But please get this Tom, there has to be a law giver because you did not come up with them all by yourself. Start there.

      Now when you appeal to something outside of culture and location, then your on shaky ground. Who are we to say that the Iranian way of implementing there law is wrong if it is all relative to a society? Try that next.

      November 22, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • Observer

      A "law giver" has nothing necessarily to do with religion. People can certainly be smart enough to figure out that killing everyone in the area will not work best for a society.

      November 22, 2011 at 1:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Observer nails it. Morality has nothing to do with a supreme being.

      November 22, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I love it when people like Mike attempt to instruct others and yet cannot figure out the difference between "you're" and "your".

      It is to laugh.

      Why don't you bozos just admit that there IS no proof, and that it is an act of faith?

      November 22, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      Observer did not nail it because he did not answer the question, then who is the law giver?

      Yes I love the argument because of a grammical mistake God doesn't exists. It's (it is) good non sequitur

      "Why don't you bozos just admit that there IS no proof, and that it is an act of faith?"

      I absolutely admit their is no proof, only evidence. But you have to admit that there IS no proof this is not a bad dream you are having. None at all, but you live your life according to the evidence that you are not dreaming

      November 23, 2011 at 9:16 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Observer did nail it. There is no evidence that there is any law giver and none that indicates that there is a supreme being behind morality.

      November 23, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      Tom, let's try this again. Now just focus on your beliefs about what is right and wrong, so you can help us understand and turn from our ways

      Do you believe it to be wrong what Hitler did and command others to do in the holocaust? If yes then you would agree that it was right for him to be stopped and potentially brought to justice.

      In your opinion where does the taught and ability come from when you say "You ought not to do that" Whether it is Hitler, Hussein or your neighbor?

      What, or where does that law come from for us to label one thing as just and one think as unjust?

      Again I am seeking your opinion and I am not telling you that your answer must be God

      November 23, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Must be God"? Hardly, you witless wonder. There is no reason to conclude any such nonsense. Prove otherwise. You have yet to present even a smidgen of proof that people develop morality without the existence of a supreme being.

      If you can't prove there's a supreme being, you can't attribute the existence of morality to it. And you haven't been able to do either.

      November 23, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      As to where morals come from, you dufus, they come from various sources. If you're attempting to prove they must come from a supreme being, then you'll have to prove one exists first.

      November 23, 2011 at 9:44 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      Tom, kind sir, please answer the question,

      Let start with is it moral to treat a woman as an object or property?

      As for proving a supreme being again I will gladly do so after you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not a dream we are having.

      November 25, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Nope. No quid pro quo, bozo. You either have proof and will provide it or you don't. As for what is morally right or wrong, it's cultural and temporal. You yourself admitted as much when you were called on your defense of slavery in the Bible.

      Get a clue, you nitwit.

      November 26, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      Tom,
      If it is cultural they you should not and can not have any objection to how another culture treats their people. Therefore other laws against woman and freedom and child slavery are correct by your definition. But you know that those things are not correct, so culture is not the answer.

      Still waiting for you to prove this is not a dream, for if this is a dream why waste time on proving a God.

      As for the evidences for God, well all creation requires a creator. I will assume that you do not believe all these post and this website itself didn't just happen.

      As for more proofs you can go through Alvin Plantinga work

      philofreligion.homestead.com/files/theisticarguments.html

      November 28, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The burden of proof is on you, dolt. You think it's a dream, it's your job to provide proof, not mine.

      There is no evidence that there is a "creator". It doesn't follow that simply because you don't know how the universe came to be that there "MUST be a creator".

      There is no necessity for a supreme being to exist for laws to exist. There is no evidence that morality is universal or that it remains static. There is no evidence that religion or belief creates morality at all.

      You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence. That's because there isn't any. There is your faith. That's all.

      Unless you have something else, you may as well shut up. You've done nothing but regurgitate the same nonsense in every post.
      But if you have no life, do continue to vomit up your plat itudes.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:58 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And here's another little nugget for you, you moron: I'm not male.

      So much for your insight.

      November 28, 2011 at 8:59 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Part 1
      "The burden of proof is on you, dolt."
      That is a falicy, the burden is to find truth. You still have to live out your life and justify why you hold on to the things you believe to be true.

      "There is no evidence that there is a "creator"."
      That's find but you can't live that out. If you believe that then you must also believe that you are having a conversation with random keystrokes. That the site you are communicating on came into existance by accident because you do not know the creator. You can't live that out.

      " I'm not male.", ok dear madam, still doesn't excuse your name calling

      "There is no evidence that morality is universal or that it remains static"
      Fine, then tell us in what time period the Holocaust is morally justified.

      "You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence"
      I see you didn't read the web site so I will force feed you.

      November 29, 2011 at 9:01 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Part 2

      1) All creation requires a creator, there is no known exception
      2) Nothing has never created something. This argument will appeal to those who think that intentionality is a characteristic of propositions, that there are a lot of propositions, and that intentionality or aboutness is dependent upon mind in such a way that there couldn't be something p about something where p had never been thought of...

      November 29, 2011 at 9:02 am |
    • Mike from CT

      3) The pe.rfect order of things to cr.eate life. If our planet was 100 miles off either way would not happen.
      Some thi.nkers claim that none of this ought to be thought sur.pr.ising or as requiring explanation: no matter how things had been, it would have been e.xce.edingly im.pro.bable. (No matter what dis.tri.bution of cards is dealt, the dis.tri.bution dealt will be im.pro.bable.) This is perhaps right, but how does it work? and how is it relevant? We are playing po.ker; each time I deal I get all the aces; you get sus.pi.cious: I try to allay your sus.pi.cions by poi.nting out that my getting all the aces each time I deal is no more improbable than any other equally spe.ci.fic dis.tri.bution over the relevant number of deals. Would that ex.plan.ation play in Dodge City (or Tom.bst.one)?

      Now if you would like to dis.cuss these points please come up with some ex.amp.les to prove them false.

      November 29, 2011 at 9:05 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Good lord, you're dumb. This isn't even close to a valid argument. The reason there's life here is because it evolved to survive in this environment, not the other way around, you dimwit.

      Do you really think there is no life elsewhere in the mult it ude of universes that exist?

      Nah. You couldn't be that stupid. Oh, wait.

      All creations require a creator? How do you know? Says who? Do you really think that you know about everything in existence? What makes you think this earth is a "creation" at all? It isn't.

      The Holocaust? Certainly Hitler thought it was justified. He thought he was doing the world a favor. If morality were universal, then it wouldn't have occurred at all, you goofus. And you have yet to show any proof that IF there's a universal morality that it comes from a supreme being that must be worshipped.

      Go ahead, dingbat, why don't you tell me what absolute morality exists? What is universally considered immoral and wrong, outside of murder?

      Oh, wait. Even that is not considered morally wrong in some cultures.

      The burden of proof is on you, and if you can't do any better than citing a website that espouses a religious explanation for the existence of life, you've failed. Again.

      November 29, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hey, bozo, have you figured out the difference between "there", "their", and "they're" yet?

      I have a difficult time restraining myself from guffawing at your attempts to "educate" me, when you're so obviously deficient in that area.

      November 29, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Mike from CT

      Yes I did, thanks for pointing out the typo. Now would you stop taking instruction from your math teacher if they misspoke. Not very logical on your part. The only thing you are doing successfully is using name calling and fake post to avoid discussing the topic at hand and putting up a smoke screen. I will wait patiently for your reply with counter arguments against the evidence for a Creator. Hopefully we can have an adult conversation about such a topic.

      November 30, 2011 at 8:41 am |
    • Mike from CT

      Do you really think there is no life elsewhere in the mult it ude of universes that exist?
      There is no reason to live your life based upon such speculation of odds, re-read the poke example.

      All creations require a creator? How do you know?
      Fine give me an example of something that you have seen created and can re-create at random.

      "The Holocaust? Certainly Hitler thought it was justified. He thought he was doing the world a favor. If morality were universal, then it wouldn't have occurred at all,"
      Actually quite the opposite if it was not universal no one should have stopped him and seen where it would have gone. It is under this universal morality that united the allies against Hitler. Just because Hitler did something does not mean he did not know it to be incorrect.

      Go ahead, dingbat, why don't you tell me what absolute morality exists? What is universally considered immoral and wrong, outside of murder? Why does it have to be outside of murder, is that not enough. What about adultery? What about the treating of a human being vs s.ex trafficking and slavery

      "Oh, wait. Even that is not considered morally wrong in some cultures." So if I am from culture X, and I say my culture is ok with killing people who post on the internet. Then you would have no ground for stopping me from killing you, given my culture.... but again we know that you would object to that.

      "The burden of proof is on you, and if you can't do any better than citing a website that espouses a religious explanation for the existence of life, you've failed. Again."
      Translation:I demand evidence (like any court case)... But If all you can do is provide the evidence for your position then that is still not enough because I will reject the evidence

      November 30, 2011 at 9:07 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You know, Mikey, with every post you write, you look dumber. I don't need to provide evidence. I didn't make a claim that god exists; you did. The burden of proof in any debate is on the person who made the claim. Anyone who got through high school knows that one can't prove a negative.

      You again fail to prove your case. The fact that you don't know or I don't know of any other civilization or life elsewhere is no proof that none exist. You have yet to prove that this planet or the life on it was created at all. The fact that you're still here attempting to make your point is evidence you have no proof of your claim.

      And that's because you don't.

      You have not provided any "evidence", sweetcheeks. You've only posted what you believe to be true. I'm not interested in your beliefs or in attempting to change them. In fact, I'm not really much interested in your drivel any longer. It's just been one long slog through your superst itions.

      Believe what you want. I'll do the same. What you've posted has only confirmed my views that religious believers like you are not terribly bright or well-educated, nor are they convincing. They're just lacking in imagination, reason, or logic.

      Now, you can continue to post whatever you want, honey. I'm not reading any more of your tripe.

      November 30, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, one last thing. You asked that I tell you what I've 'seen' that wasn't created.

      Would that be proof of its existence?

      Then you should be able to tell me that you've seen god. After all, if you haven't seen one, they must not exist.

      Good luck getting that GED, bub.

      November 30, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • fred

      Tom Tom
      Ok, I score this one 3 for Mike and 1 for you. Ya must admit the moral argument is a good one as there certainly exists some core morality. You must have played at least one hand of poker and must admit drawing Aces all the time makes no sense whatsoever. I forgot the 3rd one..............oh you called me a moron that was the 1 for you........still cant remember the 3rd one.

      November 30, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • Mike from ct

      Tom the claim you are making is that the eyewitness accounts and historicy of the bible is incorrect so you can see how the burden of proof for truth is on both of us

      I have not seen the risen christ but I also have never seen george washington serve as president but I believe both because of the historical record.

      December 1, 2011 at 8:34 am |
1 2 3 4
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.