home
RSS
Romney's faith a factor for GOP primary?
November 24th, 2011
12:03 AM ET

Romney's faith a factor for GOP primary?

By Rebecca Stewart, CNN

(CNN) – If half the public says they don't know very much about Mormonism and one-third of Republicans say the Mormon religion is not a Christian faith, how will GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney fare in his bid for the White House?

According to a new national survey, it won't affect Romney in a hypothetical general election faceoff with President Barack Obama, but his Mormon faith may have an impact on the former Massachusetts governor's chances in the GOP primaries and caucuses.

Romney is seeking the Republican presidential nomination for a second time and, as it turns out, opinions about his religion haven't changed since he ran the first time, in 2007.

A Pew Research Center poll released late Tuesday indicates that 52% of Americans said they knew "not very much" or nothing about the Mormon religion in 2007, when Romney sought the presidency for the first time, and 50% say the same now. The number who say Mormonism is a Christian religion-51%–is the same in 2011 as it was in 2007.

Full Story

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Mitt Romney • Mormonism • Politics • Polls

soundoff (413 Responses)
  1. Doc Vestibule

    Beware Shamans who charge a fee for salvation.
    Mormons are told: "if a dest.itute family is faced with the decision of paying their ti.thing or eating, they should pay their t.ithing." (Lynn Robbins, General Conference, April 2005).

    "Ti.thing is an important test of our personal righteousness. President Joseph F. Smith (1838-1918) said: “By this principle it shall be known who is for the kingdom of God and who is against it. … By it it shall be known whether we are faithful or unfaithful” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 276)."
    To make sure congregants are paying up, each year they must go before a Bishop for a Ti.thing Settlement.
    A member is questioned in a one-on-one interview with the Bishop to ensure the member is paying a full 10%.
    Those members who are not paying a full 10% lose their temple recommendations, are prevented from entering the.
    If a member cannot get into the temple, they cannot learn the secret handshake, secret password, secret "new name" and special “sealings”.
    Without these, the member will be unable to pass Joseph Smith and the angels who guard the entrance to the Celestial Kingdom.

    The LDS are all about the $$.

    November 24, 2011 at 3:11 pm |
    • myklds

      Blessings come in a thousand folds.

      November 26, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  2. David Johnson

    @LMB123

    Why does it bother you, to be labeled "Not a Christian"? As an atheist, I bet most would stick this label on me. I wear it proudly. Like a "Union Made" label. Christians are bigots.

    Be proud my little Mormon! Your religion may just possibly be more idiotic than Christianity.

    Someday, when our sun finally burns out its filament, the last human will sigh and admit, Dave was right. Christianity was made from a house of doody.

    Be not ashamed! In the Christian god's house there are many insane asylums. The Christians, being deluded, pretend they are mansions.

    Cheers!

    November 24, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • The Bobinator

      Mormonism isn't any more stupid then Christianity. It just has more stupid things. Think of it like a 200 page novel of stupid vs. a 250 page novel of stupid.

      November 24, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Bible:
      Book I – Smitey God of the Jews
      Book II – The Torture of God's Loving Son
      Book III – American Je$u$

      They're each more full of guano than the BatCave.

      November 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Here we go with the proud mantra again. Yes, we know fools are proudly full of themselves.

      Amen.

      November 26, 2011 at 9:43 am |
  3. David Johnson

    Idiocy, like morals, is relative. Are Christians bigger idiots than Muslims? Depends on who you ask.

    My gift from god this year, was the selling of the Crystal Cathedral to the Catholics.

    Cheers!

    November 24, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • HeavenSent

      Mark 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings [are here]!

      Mark 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

      Amen.

      November 26, 2011 at 9:46 am |
  4. David Johnson

    I would prefer Obama run against Bachmann. She seems so sane... like a true Christian should be.

    Come on, my Evangelicals! You know the Mormons aren't Christians. Their beliefs are more nutty than yours. Get behind Bachmann! She is Jesus' real choice.

    Let's hear it! Bachmann! Bachmann!

    Cheers!

    November 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      I want what you're smoking...lol...c'mon a dead cat could run the country better than Bachman.

      November 24, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @TruthPrevails David is simply looking forward to the election. A dead cat would have a better chance against Obama than Bachman, eh?

      November 24, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @TruthPrevails

      I think the unemployment rate could be at 12% and Bachmann would still lose.

      Cheers!

      November 24, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Mirosal

      I would rather vote for Randy Bachman than Michele Bachmann ... because b b b baby you just ain't seen n n n nothin' yet!!

      November 25, 2011 at 7:19 am |
  5. David Johnson

    @Chad

    What does it matter? Jesus was a myth, composed of sun gods of the times.

    You like to tell everyone what the Christian god's will is. Can you prove the Christian god exists?

    Otherwise, it is just your opinion.

    Cheers!

    November 24, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Chad

      I really don't like cutting and pasting the same thing in different posts, but as you keep posing the exact same question and never addressing the points raised demonstrating Gods existence, I guess I'll do so again..

      1. The scientifically required necessity of an uncaused cause at the origin of the universe. The universe is expanding in all directions and cooling. Going backwards there was a point in time when the universe had infinite heat and density. Prior to this singularity there was nothing. Not “something”, nothing. Matter and time were created at that point of rapid expansion. By definition whatever caused this expansion could not have itself had a prior cause (the infinite regression problem). Whatever caused it must have always existed. That is what physicists call the “uncaused cause”

      Atheists who dont want to believe in an uncaused cause, are stuck with either the problem of an infinite regression, or the problem of the universe being created out of nothing, by nothing.
      Atheists who do believe in an uncaused cause but don't believe it is a personal god, are stuck with the issue of having an ent ity creating the universe, but after that taking no interest in it, which would be really weird..

      2. The phenomenal preciseness of the “big bang” expansion which was required to allow stars/planets to form. The fact that space and time were created at that cosmic singularity. (And God said, "Let there be light"). It didn’t just randomly explode, rather it expanded in such a precise manner that an infinitesimal change would have rendered a universe where matter was so spread out no formation of stars could have possibly occurred.

      Atheists are stuck with the “well, even though it was fantastically improbable to have happened, it somehow did!”

      3. The fact that the universe obeys laws and that science by definition relies on that which it can not explain: "Science starts from the existence of those laws, can NOT EVER disprove God". – Leonard Mlodinow Co-author along with Stephen Hawkings of A Briefer History of Time.

      An atheist must ignore the fact that the universe obeys laws, or like Leonard Mlodinow, just “wonder from time to time why they do”, but do nothing about it.

      4. The fossil record which shows millions of years of stable species, then an explosion of necessary mutations, all occurring at the precise necessary time required for complex organisms to develop, and ALL escaping fossilization
      “the sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation” – Wikipedia

      An atheist needs to believe that ALL species, every single one, millions of them “evolved” along this pattern: nothing happens for millions of years, then in a time period short enough to ALWAYS escape fossilization ALL of the mutations occur, precisely orchestrated such that complex organs can develop. All speciations always obey that fantastically improbable sequence.

      5. The historical evidence of Jesus Christ “Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea,[18] that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[19] Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement.” –Wikipedia

      An atheist needs to believe that Jesus Christ was an insane man, truly insane, who believed he was fathered by a deity. We arent talking sort of nuts, really really nuts. Then you have to explain how that crazy person sounds so fantastically logical and rational in the gospel accounts.

      6. The historical fact that Jesus died and was buried in a tomb. Three days later that tomb was found to be empty, following that hundreds of people reported they witnessed the resurrected Jesus and were willing to go to their death saying that.
      An atheist is stuck with trying to understand how so many people could have been tortured to death knowing it was for a lie.

      7. The demonstrated historical accuracy of the biblical narrative in all accounts, the Gospel of Luke alone has hundreds of verified historical accuracies and has NO historical inaccuracies.
      An atheist has to believe that the authors of the Gospels a) said what that what they were writing was true and in some cases claimed to be witnesses of Jesus b) were extremely diligent with recording historical details and yet, were completely and utterly hallucinating about having seen a resurrected Jesus.

      The fact that we have a universal understanding of good and evil.
      – If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
      – Evil exists.
      – Therefore, objective moral values exist. (Some things are evil!)
      – Therefore, God exists.
      An atheist has to believe that some how a universal morality “evolved”

      November 26, 2011 at 9:57 am |
    • fred

      Thanks Chad !
      Now, I get stumped on the fact God always was then someone asks me who made God. I just never have a good answer for that other than the Bible says so and I believe it. Any help on that?

      November 26, 2011 at 10:21 am |
    • Denzel

      @Fred-Have you ever wondered what eternity is? What Alpha and Omega is?
      Is the human mind even capable of comprehending what that is?

      I am positive Chad has a better answer for you on that.

      November 26, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • Jimtanker

      @ Chad

      There is a HUGE problem with your TAG argument there. There is no universal good or evil. Those are societal norms and values. WE as a people determine what those are. Your argument fails.

      November 26, 2011 at 10:56 am |
    • fred

      Denzel
      Yeh, I kinda stick with the name God gave to Moses when he who shall I say sent me? Tell them "I AM" sent you.

      November 26, 2011 at 11:20 am |
    • Really?

      @Chad- You can't really believe the conclusion of your post is a valid syllogism?
      "- If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist." – false...read Sam Harris.
      "- Evil exists." – false..."evil" is a label based on cultural norms.
      "- Therefore, objective moral values exist." – true...again, read Sam Harris.
      "- Therefore, God exists." – false...this is a non sequitur.
      "An atheist has to believe that some how a universal morality “evolved” – true...once you take off your dogmatic blinders, this is incredibly easy to see.
      I suggest your spend some time reading something other than the bible and the works of religious apologists.

      November 26, 2011 at 11:25 am |
    • say what

      Moral laws come from an infallible source.
      Moral relativism fails.In some societies people like to eat their neighbors, in some others they don't.

      Do you have a preference?

      November 26, 2011 at 11:42 am |
    • johnfrichardson

      To the extent that there is any universality to morals, it is based on the simple fact that we are a social species and all social species treat members of their in group differently, and better, than they treat other animals. But there is an essential tension between cooperation and competi-tion within the kind that prevents ANY social group from being the sort of utopia that Christians and other idiots dream up all the time. Human societies are a lot more complex than most tribes of social animals, but the same tensions exist.

      November 26, 2011 at 11:57 am |
    • johnfrichardson

      @Chad i see you still haven't read any real paleontology.
      @say what It's always interesting to see how much two different believers in moral absolutes actually agree. So, in the spirit of the season, were the executions of the alleged witches in Salem Massachusetts good or evil?

      November 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
    • fred

      Johnf
      On what basis can you say good and evil evolved ? Everything you assume about man thousands of years ago is based on a godless perspective. You mine for your gold down that vain and you will only find that treasure you seek.
      Perhaps Chad seeing both the light and digging in same shaft has a more balanced perspective than those who reject the light.

      November 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
    • Dr.

      @Chad

      See? I told you, theirs is a hopeless case.

      November 26, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Chad

      Your First Cause argument:
      1. The scientifically required necessity of an uncaused cause at the origin of the universe. The universe is expanding in all directions and cooling. Going backwards there was a point in time when the universe had infinite heat and density. Prior to this singularity there was nothing. Not “something”, nothing. Matter and time were created at that point of rapid expansion. By definition whatever caused this expansion could not have itself had a prior cause (the infinite regression problem). Whatever caused it must have always existed. That is what physicists call the “uncaused cause”

      Reply to 1. :

      Actually, even if your argument were true, it would not prove that your god was the uncaused cause. The uncaused cause may have been Allah, Krishna, Zeus or Isis etc.
      Anything your Christian god could have done, the other gods could have done. It just depends on a person's belief. LOL

      Your argument for a god (uncaused cause) is flawed:
      EVERY EVENT DOES NOT HAVE A CAUSE
      The universe is actually ruled, at its most basic level, by quantum mechanics. We know that it is possible for particles and events to have no cause.

      I will include a video to better help your understanding.

      Fred is right. IF EVERYTHING REQUIRES A CAUSE, THEN WHAT CAUSED GOD?
      If you claim the god is the one uncaused cause, the unmoved mover... then your "Everything must have a cause has been reduced from a "law", to merely a suggestion. We now have an exception to the rule.

      Inventing a god, does not explain the existence of the universe. All you have done is create a new puzzle of how did this god come to be.

      I am going to answer your arguments in several posts.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

      Cheers!

      November 26, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Chad

      Assumptions:
      (1) Jesus died in about 30 C.E.

      (2) Hearsay is not acceptable evidence.

      Hearsay – hear•say/ˈhi(ə)rˌsā/
      Noun: Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
      The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
      Synonyms: rumor – report – gossip – whisper – scuttlebutt – crap (mine)

      There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The Gospels were written by god knows who in the third person. The Gospels were written with an agenda i.e., Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.

      We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
      -Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

      The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
      -Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

      Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
      -C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

      Mark was the first gospel (Markan Priority). Luke and Mathew copied from Mark and from a doc_ument called "Q". 90% of Mathew's gospel, is copied from Mark. Why would an eyewitness need to copy from Mark? Not just the same narratives, but the exact same words?

      There are no known secular writings about Jesus, that aren't forgeries, later insertions, or hearsay. NONE!

      Most of the supposed authors lived AFTER Jesus was dead. Can you say hearsay? Can you say "the dead tell no tales"?

      Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) a contemporary Jewish historian, never wrote a word about Jesus. This is odd, since Philo wrote broadly on the politics and theologies around the Mediterranean.

      Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 BCE – 65 CE) A.K.A. Seneca the Younger. A contemporary of Jesus wrote extensively on many subjects and people. But he didn't write a word about a Jesus.

      Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 AD – August 25, 79 AD), better known as Pliny the Elder, was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher. Plinius wrote "Naturalis Historia", an encyclopedia into which he collected much of the knowledge of his time. There is no mention of a Jesus.

      The area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And nothing about the Jesus. Nada! Not even something chiseled on a wall or carved into a tree like: "Jesus Loves Mary Magdalene".

      John 21:25 King James Version (KJV)
      25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
      Golly Gee! You would think a fellow this "gifted" , would have at least been mentioned by one of these historians.
      There is a line in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar that says:"The rocks themselves would start to sing".

      Hmm...

      We don't even have a wooden shelf that Jesus might have built. Or anything written by Jesus. God incarnate, and we don't even have a Mother's day card signed by Him.

      Mark 3:7- 8 King James Version (KJV)
      7But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great mult_itude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea,
      8And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great mult_itude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.

      Yet, not one of these adoring fans, bothered to draw a picture, chisel a bust, or even write down a description. Even Mohammad has a description. Virtually all important people do. And god, being god, could have preserved it.

      Huge groups of people following a man who had performed miracles...yet no historian of the time, commented on it.
      The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention Jesus or have any New Testament scripture, as some have claimed.

      Jesus, if he existed, was not considered important enough to write about by any contemporary person. The myth hadn't had a chance to flourish. The future stories and miracles needed time to grow and spread.

      Paul's writings were the first, about Jesus. But, Paul's writing was done 25 to 30 years after Jesus was dead. In a primitive, ultra-supersti_tious society, 25 years is a lot of time for a myth to grow. Twenty-five years was most of the average person's lifespan in the 1st Century.

      No television, No electric lights. People mostly sat around and told stories... Ever played "telephone"? A story is started at the beginning of a group. Each person passes the story along to the next person. The person at the end retells the story and it is compared to the original. Often the ending story is totally different from the original.

      Also, when you have a superhero, it is beyond belief that this hero's deeds would not get better in the telling.

      Some people feel that Paul, not Jesus, is the real father of what most Christians believe today (Pauline Christianity).
      Paul never actually met Jesus. His knowledge and faith was the result of hearsay and an epileptic "vision".
      "In more recent times, this opinion has found support from the fact that sight impediment-including temporary blindness lasting from several hours to several days-has been observed as being a symptom or result of an epileptic seizure and has been mentioned in many case reports."
      Source: http://www.epilepsiemuseum.de/alt/paulusen.html

      The Christian Right has embraced Paul as the moral lawgiver. Paul's First Ep_istle of Paul to the Thessalonians, is often quoted by the Republicans. You never hear them quote Jesus' advice to the rich. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

      Questions on the Crucifixion story:

      "Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save." Mark 15:31
      "Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe..." Mark 15:32
      It would appear, that the chief priests are admitting that Jesus "saved" others. If they knew this, then there is no reason for them to demand that Jesus descend from the cross, in order for them to believe. They already admitted to knowing of Jesus' "miracles".

      This is just an obvious embellishment by Mark. A work of fiction possibly constructed to make it appear that some Old Testament "prediction" was fulfilled. Like:

      "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting." – Isaiah 50:6

      Here is a problem with your 3 days in the grave pitch:
      1 Corinthian 15:14-17 – Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection.

      1 Corinthians 15:4 "4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"

      Matthew 12:40 – Jesus said, that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights.

      Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only 2 days at the most. Or, if you count Friday and Sunday as entire days, then you could get 3 days and 2 nights. This is a gimme though. The Mary's went to the grave at sunrise and it was empty.
      Obviously, the believers spin this like a pinwheel. I have seen explanations like: Jesus was actually crucified on Wednesday or maybe Thursday; The prophesy actually means 12 hour days, and not 24 hour days; The partial days are counted as full days. This one is true, but still doesn't add up.

      At any rate, the crucifixion day and number of days and nights Jesus spent in the grave, is disputed.

      It looks very much like, that Jesus was not in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. The prophecy was not fulfilled.

      1 Corinthian 15:14-17 – Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection. Hmm...
      And what of this?:
      Jesus had healed a woman on the Sabbath!:

      Luke 13 31:33 KJV
      31The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

      32And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

      33Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.
      NOTE that Jesus is saying, it is impossible for a prophet (Himself) to be killed outside of Jerusalem.

      Yet, Jesus WAS killed outside Jerusalem!

      Calvary or Golgotha was the site, outside of ancient Jerusalem’s early first century walls, at which the crucifixion of Jesus is said to have occurred. OOoopsie!

      And there is this:
      According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."

      Yet not a single secular mention of a three hour ecliptic event got recorded. 'Cause it didn't happen!

      Mathew 27 51:53
      51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ crucifixion and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

      How come nobody wrote about zombies running through the cities? 'Cause it is all b.s.

      An interesting note, which should not be ignored:
      "The same phenomena and portents of the sudden darkness at the sixth hour, a strong earthquake, rent stones, a temple entrance broken in two, and the rising of the dead have been reported by multiple ancient writers for the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC." – Sources Wikipedia (John T. Ramsey & A. Lewis Licht, The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games, Atlanta 1997, p. 99–107

      Hmmm...

      If you can't even believe the crucifixion story how likely is the resurrection account to be true? In a book that is a mix of fiction and "fact", how do you know which is which? Especially, since all of the bible seems very unlikely and does not fit with the reality we see around us.?

      Then there is the "testimony" of Jesus himself, who explicitly stated that some of his disciples would not die until Jesus inst_ituted the Kingdom, and that his generation would not pass away until all his prophecies of the end of the world had been fulfilled:

      [Jesus Speaking]
      Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

      I know, spin, spin, spin. But the truth is, the authors of the Gospels wrote that Jesus would be back in the 1st Century.

      Jesus could not be wrong and be god. Gossip and deceit, could.

      If Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, who died for man's redemption, then this would be the most important event in the history of man.

      Having gone to the trouble of impregnating a human and being born god incarnate and dying for mankind's sins, why wouldn't god have ensured there was tons of evidence that this was true? Multiple Writings by contemporary eyewitnesses – Jews and Romans and Greeks.

      You are going to want to say that there IS lots of evidence, but look at reality: There are way more people, in the world, who are not Christians (67%) than who are (33%). Obviously, the evidence is not adequate to convince even a majority of the world's people. An almighty god can only get a 33% approval rating? LOL

      I would expect better performance from an almighty god.?

      You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. – Carl Sagan

      Concerning your historians Vs. my historians (Your appeal to authority):
      "If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will be fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile.
      In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority. "
      Source: The Nizkor Project, 1991-2011
      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

      Cheers!

      November 26, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      The above video by Lawrence Krauss is awesome. Kudos on posting that on David.

      November 26, 2011 at 3:39 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Chad

      On your Evolution occurred, so there must be a god? argument:

      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. Instead, there are natural causes for earthquakes and floods and other disasters.

      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 we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last [Christ]?" 1 Corinthians15:45

      If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible, for the entire bible is based on it.

      If we evolved, there is no soul –> no afterlife –> no need of a heaven or hell.

      LOL, which is why the Creationists fight so hard against evolution. And why many Evangelicals are reinterpreting Genesis to encompass an old earth. Which looks like what you are doing.

      Let's see... "And there was evening and there was morning, one day." – Umm... That's millions of years to you and me!

      The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes, or Allah, or Zeus or Santa. And you don't believe in any of those, Right?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_v-1JFQA0d0

      Cheers!

      November 26, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • say what

      It is a mystery!!!
      Oh the mysteries of infinity...interesting that he still used 1,2,3 to define infinity and obviously wound up no explanation for infinitum.
      It is good to know that atheists live with a lot of unsolved mysteries while the rest of mankind are light years ahead in terms of their understanding!

      November 26, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Chad

      @fred "Now, I get stumped on the fact God always was then someone asks me who made God. I just never have a good answer for that other than the Bible says so and I believe it. Any help on that?"

      I'll take a swing at it, others do much better than me..

      I think first and foremost, it's important to remember the distance in intellect and abilities between humans and God. God has the ability to speak the universe into existence, so humans trying to comprehend all of what He has said is true can sometimes be like an ant trying to comprehend what a human knows as true.. It just isn't possible, just as the ant lacks the reasoning/comprehension skills, so we also lack them in comparison.

      Secondly, we need to understand the nature of time. Now you and I think that terms like "before" and "after" are immutable. There is a now, a past, and a future right?
      However, it turns out that isn't quite true.
      If you read Hawkings/Mlodinow/Einstein they say that time itself was created at the big bang, and that time isn't a constant (it varies in relation to mass/speed). I certainly don't understand all of the ramifications, but it now makes more sense to consider that God exists OUTSIDE our time/space and that therefor there is no "before" and "after" with God, there is only now.
      So, I think it is those three things in combination
      1. we can't possibly understand the mind of God, so some things are just going to remain a mystery
      2. all of the mass in the universe, and time itself was created at the big bang, time did not exist before then.
      3. God exists outside our time and space, there is no "before" or "beginning" for God. That is a concept that we have because it is a dimension that we live in. God just IS (always present tense).

      Hope that helps, that's how I think of it, you're thoughts welcome!!

      November 26, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @Jimtanker "There is a HUGE problem with your TAG argument there. There is no universal good or evil. Those are societal norms and values. WE as a people determine what those are. Your argument fails."

      =>Except that we all just "know" that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong.. All these things we just "know".

      November 26, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • Chad

      @David Johnson
      1. So you're going with "the universe was created out of nothing, by nothing". Ok, that's fine. I don't see how it's possible, but it's a free country.

      2. Not sure that you are quite understanding the Gospels, they were written by eye witnesses: John, Mark, Matthew, (Luke wasn't an actual eye witness). within decades of Jesus death/resurrection. This isn't my opinion on the matter, those are facts. You're nonsense about Jesus being a mythical figure is just that. There are ZERO critical scholars that embrace that. ZERO.

      3. Evolution, again, you are woefully behind the 8-ball there. You need to read up on current thought:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

      Quality always beats quant*ity when it comes to presenting a viewpoint David... To be sure, I have to learn the skill of conciseness myself. However, you REALLY REALLY REALLY have to learn it..

      November 26, 2011 at 7:03 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Chad

      You said: "So you're going with "the universe was created out of nothing, by nothing". Ok, that's fine. I don't see how it's possible, but it's a free country."

      Keep re-watching the video. I can understand, after reading your posts, why you are slow at understanding.

      Just because you don't see / understand how it's possible, means nothing. Google: "Argument From Personal Astonishment".

      You said: " Not sure that you are quite understanding the Gospels, they were written by eye witnesses: John, Mark, Matthew, (Luke wasn't an actual eye witness). within decades of Jesus death/resurrection. This isn't my opinion on the matter, those are facts. You're nonsense about Jesus being a mythical figure is just that. There are ZERO critical scholars that embrace that. ZERO."

      You are an idiot. In my original argument I gave a number of scholars that believe the real authors were not Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Only the most deluded believe this is so. The average life span in the first century was 29. Mark's Gospel "debuted" in 60 to 70 CE. So Mark must have been running around with Jesus, in diapers. I know, with god all things are possible! There is always a B.S. spin.

      These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their t_itles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are "according" to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, "They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority." Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They appeared anonymously. The t_itles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

      Also re-read (try not to move your lips) my original argument on the Gospels.

      You said: "Evolution, again, you are woefully behind the 8-ball there. You need to read up on current thought.

      As I said, creationists fight like the dickens against evolution. It reveals the entire bible to be a fairy tale.

      "The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]" – Source Wikipedia

      Associated Press Updated 12/20/2005 9:20:37 PM ET:

      HARRISBURG, Pa. — In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise. "

      Face it Sparky. Christianity is a house of cards and Science is at the door with a bulldozer. LOL 'till my sides ache.

      There is no evidence for your god. Jesus was a myth. Were there some other Jews named Jesus living at the time? Yes. But none pretending to be the Messiah. Could just as well have been Herbie the Christ. LOL.

      There were tons of Messiahs in the first century. The Romans were tough to work for. Can't blame them for making up a savior.

      Stop preaching Chad. You have no evidence that what you are saying is any more true, than Homer's Odyssey. Or any other god past or present.

      You said: "Quality always beats quant*ity when it comes to presenting a viewpoint David..."

      Chad! I give you both quant_ity and quality.

      Cheers!

      November 27, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
    • fred

      David
      Still bringing up the Jesus is a myth line? Thought we settled that one. It is one thing to argue Jesus was who he said he was it is another to argue against the consensus that Jesus at a minimum was a rabble rousing preacher who was executed at the time of Pilate. When did you go back to being the only person in the free world to dispute this

      November 27, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
  6. LMB123

    Mormons are MORE Christian than most other Christians. ACTIONS speak louder than words.! Not all, but many other Christians are more full of hot air than anything else, otherwise they would be trying to convert (save) us instead of criticizing us.

    November 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • Sam

      Are there Mormons in the Europe, Africa, Australia? Or is this made in America?

      November 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @LMB123

      I seem to recall that all Mormon males are required to go on a mission...Most I think, to convert others to their religion.

      In my neighborhood, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons and Evangelicals practically run over each other getting to the houses.

      What's fun, is to wait 'till they are about halfway up the walkway, and then hit the sprinklers! If sufficiently "plowed", I come out on the porch and scream gibberish about being baptized.

      Who says the believers can't swear? LOL

      Cheers!

      November 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
  7. LMB123

    For all those idiots that keep calling Mormons not Christians: I'm a Mormon, I worship only one person, God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, who was the only begotten of the Father and who died on the cross for ALL of us. It is the same Jesus you claim to believe in. The only difference is we actually like to DO what he asked us to do in his gospel, instead of just paying lip service to him. "By their fruits you shall know them. A bad tree can not produce good fruit" (quote from the Bible). Take a look at all the good "fruits" produced by the Mormon Church in LDS.org and then click on menu and then click on Humanitarian Aid. Very very eye opening!

    November 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
    • Sam

      If Mormons are Christians, then why call yourselves Mormon? Why not call yourselves Christians?

      November 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • Matt

      @ Sam – Are Catholics not Christians? Episcopalians? Lutherans?

      November 24, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • Get Real

      Come off it, Sam. Why do people call themselves Baptists, then?... and Catholics, and Methodists and Episcopalians, and Lutherans, and on and on to the tune of around 38,000+ different flavors?!

      November 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm |
    • Sam

      Lutherans/Methodists/Baptist are denominations of Christians, they read the Bible. THey don't use a separate Methodist or Baptist Bible.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
    • Matt

      @ Sam - That wasn't your argument. If you want to debate what makes a "true" Christian, go ahead. I'm going to go watch football. I only logged on because I can't stand Nickelback.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  8. Revelation

    I prayed that CNN would block Chad's posts, yet here he is again. I guess that's proof there is no god.

    November 24, 2011 at 11:38 am |
  9. Richard

    NONE of the candidates have the guts to tell the American people, "It's time to STOP living beyond your means," cut the size of government by 20% and install spending cuts to eliminate the deficit within eight years. Whether or not he believes in some variation of the Christian god is of no consequence.

    November 24, 2011 at 10:51 am |
  10. RDWinmill

    Krister Stendahl , Emeritus Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm once said, " I have three rule for interfaith discussion. 1) Ask them about what they believe rather than their enemies, 2) Compare your bests with their bests. 3) Leave room for holy envy." That is indeed a Christian perspective.

    November 24, 2011 at 10:40 am |
  11. John Richardson

    We're months out from the first primary and the race for the GOP nomination has already devolved into a scene from the Keystone Cops. It's been great! I especially loved how evangelical nimrod Rick Perry took a huge surge in popularity and turned into into a spectacular wipe out simply trying and failing to articulate, well, anything. They guy is a true bag of hammers. I guess he'll have to go back to dreaming of being president of the Republic of Texas! Ha!

    November 24, 2011 at 8:15 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      LOL...more like a bag of rocks...hammers at least might be useful if you come across a bag of nails....and a cross of wood.

      November 24, 2011 at 8:21 am |
    • AvdBerg

      AtheistSteve
      Regarding your earlier posting, Satan does exist, as does God, sin, souls, etc. For a better understanding we invite you to read the article 'Who is God and who is Satan, listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

      Satan empowers every man, woman and child as we are all born in sin throught the sinful seed of our natural fathers (1 Peter 1:23). I was too for 39 years as I followed the spirit of this world and was in bondage thereof. For this reason do we preach repentance to all of mankind, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan (whose spirit you are of) unto God (Acts 26:18).

      Through the religions of this word Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light and and apostle of Christ (2 Cor. 11;13-15). This is how the whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9. In summary any member of a religious organization is of the same spirit as an atheist, member of the gay community (Luke 9:55).

      Seek, and ye will find (Matthew 7:7).

      November 24, 2011 at 1:30 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      @AvgBerg: How can you be so certain that satan, god, a soul, heaven or hEll exist? What is your basis for this claim?

      November 24, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
    • Fordham Jock

      Hey AVD,
      Suppose that you are correct. Then suppose that there are countless other civilizations of intelligent beings in this, and/or other universes. Do you suppose that each and every one of them did NOT "sin", and WE are THE exception ? And if they did, what had to be done about that situation ?

      November 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • AvdBerg

      TruthPrevails
      By their fruits ye shall know them (Matthew 7:16-20). God is truth and there is no lie in Him (6:18). Our testimony speaks of Him and is listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca
      He that is spiritual judgeth (discerneth) all things, yet he himself is judged of no man (1 Cor. 2:15).
      More revelations and testimonials will be listed in the future.

      November 24, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • Brad

      AvdBerg

      You are trying to be like John the Baptist? “A voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him. Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill made low. The crooked roads shall become straight, the rough ways smooth. And all people will see God’s salvation.'" Like him you're calling on everyone to repent. How does one repent? John was clear and direct about that. What do you say is true repentance?

      November 24, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      @AvdBerg: Okay, let me rephrase that...how can you be so certain of what you speak to be true? Can you give a physical description of god, satan, jesus, heaven, or hell or a soul? I'm not arguing with you here...I want to hear what you believe and in explaining please do not use the buybull...in order to prove your point you need to be a lot more convincing than quoting from the buybull. If that is your only source and reasoning, then it stands to reason that you have not done enough research. This is my opinion of course but I'm a firm believer in examining the evidence as it is put forth and tested by numerous sources and not accepting one source as the true answer.

      November 24, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      "Regarding your earlier posting, Satan does exist, as does God, sin, souls, etc. "

      And so you continue to as.sert. Believe what you want, that still doesn't make it true. Right after you say this you post references to various biblical verses as if that somehow vindicates your as.sertion... It doesn't....especially to someone who thinks the Bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on. The idiots who wrote the Bible were ignorant about a great deal more than we know now. The entire structure of the Bible is a con designed to instill fear into the simpleminded. Thus my earlier claim that you have been duped.

      November 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @AvdBerg

      Oh, my deluded believer! There is no devil. No demons of any sort. Nothing under your beds. If there were, I would tell you.

      Satan was invented by men, because they felt "funny" worshipping a god that had just devastated a village of good people via a flood. They didn't want their god to be the one who did evil. So, Beelzebub was born.

      Consider: You believe god is all knowing. Yes?

      You believe god is all powerful. Yes?

      You believe everything written in the bible is true. Yes?

      You believe Satan is at least as intelligent as your average human. Yes?

      You believe Satan can read? Yes?

      Do you think Satan ever read the part, in the King James, where he loses the battle against god? What would be the point in continuing the battle, if the goal (victory?) ABSOLUTELY was not obtainable? I think this would be disheartening to any army. Even a band of fallen angels.

      But more importantly:
      Who, more than a fallen angel, would believe/know god was omniscient? Not to mention omnipotent. That would have been a stumbling block to any coup attempt. Right?

      God, with these superlative attributes, could not be surprised or defeated. He could not be wounded. He is almighty! Right?

      God is faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to bend steel with His bare hands!

      So, rebellion would have been dumb of Satan and his band of angels. God would have said, "You will lose and you will lose your health insurance." End of rebellion, I think.

      These stories are fiction. Do you see that? What ent ity would rebel against an all powerful, all knowing god? You couldn't even sneak up on Him. Sheesh! Use your brain, just a little. Ever read any Greek mythology? Lots of battles between the gods.

      What's funny, is that Christians bestow upon their god, the attributes of being Omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
      Never mind that it is impossible for a god to be all those things at the same time.

      But, Christians never stop to think how these attributes affect their fairy tales. They never consider the ramifications resulting from these superlative qualities that they give to their god.

      Some have told me, that Satan knows he will be defeated. His goal is to take as many humans to hell with him as possible.
      But, Christians also say, their god is all knowing. If god can see the future, if the future can be known, He would know exactly how many souls will be lost and how many saved. He would know this, from the beginning. If He does not know this, then He is not Omniscient.

      If god can know the future, Satan would be locked into his part. Like Judas and Peter, he would have no choice.
      If the predictions of the bible concerning Satan and the end times are true, then all the events and actions leading up to the fulfillment of these predictions, are predetermined. Predictions, cannot depend on chance.

      “For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
      – Carl Sagan

      Ha, Ha, Ha! I laugh at you and your silly beliefs!

      Cheers!

      November 26, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
  12. Reality

    Romney believes that the horn-blowing angel Moroni appeared to the con artist Joe Smith. Not good for someone who wants to be president of any group !!! Obama "mouths" that he is Christian i.e. believes in gay Gabriel and war-mongering Michael the Archangel and Satan. BO's support of abortion/choice however vitiates has Christianity as he is the leader of the Immoral Majority who are now the largest voting block in the country. Immoral Majority you ask??

    The 78 million voting "mothers and fathers" of aborted womb babies !!! (2012 -1973 Rowe vs. Wade = 39. 39 x 2 million = 78 million. Abortion rate in the USA as per the CDC is one million/yr.

    And the presidential popular vote in 2008? 69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM. The population of the Immoral Majority in 2008? ~ 70 million !!!!!!

    November 24, 2011 at 8:02 am |
  13. AvdBerg

    Romney’s faith is not in the true and living God but rather the god of this world (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 4:8).

    The Mormon Church is no different than any other religion and serves the same spirit. Why are the Mormons so determined to put one of their members into The White House? For a better understanding of the 180 year history of the Mormon Church and their hidden agenda, we invite you to read the article ‘Mormon Church ~ Cult and Spiritual Harlot’ listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

    The following is an excerpt from the article.

    “* The General Authorities (Mormon Church leaders) are bent on replacing the American free and pluralistic society with a society controlled and governed not by freely elected officials, but by the male hierarchy of the Mormon Church who would control the appointment of all elected officials, including the congressional members, governors, state legislators, local officials and even the President of the United States. The ultimate plan of the Mormon Church and its authorities is to take all power to themselves, their President/Prophet becoming the king of the world.”

    The members of the Mormon Church (and other religions) are spiritually blind and do not understand that God’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36; Isa. 9:6; Dan. 2:44; 7:14; Luke 17:20,21; John 17:14-16). God would have certainly not have asked Mitt Romney to be President of the United States of America, as most GOP Candidates claim.

    Mitt Romney, along with the CNN writer of the above article Rebecca Stewart, were born in sin (1 Peter 1:23) and unless they repent they will die in their sin (Romans 8:13). They are spiritually blind and do not know what spirit they serve (Luke 9:55). Their faith does not stand in Jesus Christ and the church Mitt Romney belongs to serves after an image of a false god and a false Christ (Matthew 24:24). They do service unto them which by nature are no gods (Gal. 4:8). As a result of their spiritual blindness they do not know that all the other GOP Candidates are of the same spirit as well (darkness). For a better understanding what it means to be a sinner, we invite you to read the articles ‘What is Sin?’, ‘Victory over Sin’ and ‘Repent’, listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca.

    Concerning the faith of Barack Obama, we invite you to read the article ‘Barack Obama ~ President of the United States of America’.

    Also, to give people a better understanding of the destructive forces behind CNN and US Politics and the issues that divide this world, we invite you to read the article ‘CNN Belief Blog ~ Sign of the Times’.

    All of the other pages and articles listed on our website explain how this whole world has been deceived as confirmed by the Word of God in Revelation 12:9. The Bible is true in all things and is the discerner of every thought and the intent of the heart (Hebrews 5:12). The truth is that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14). This is why we call all of mankind to repentance.

    Seek, and ye shall find (Matthew 7:7).

    November 24, 2011 at 7:37 am |
    • Reality

      "Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books".[30] Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he "considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." [31]

      Martin Luther "found it an offensive piece of work" and John Calvin "had grave doubts about its value."[32]

      November 24, 2011 at 8:03 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Sorry to break it to you but your particular flavor of insanity is essentially no different than the others. Gotta love it when clowns like you resort to the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" like you have some secret magic decoder ring to the truth whereas your contemporaries do not. News flash idiot...you know absolutely nothing of value concerning your God that isn't equally unjustified by every other religious kook. That's because just like the rest it's all in your head. Time to do some serious brain housecleaning...wipe out the dusty mythological garbage and replace it with common sense, empirical data and logical conclusions.

      November 24, 2011 at 8:11 am |
    • AvdBerg

      AtheistSteve
      The Mormon's hidden agenda is a real threat to every American and the people of this world. We invite you to read the whole article and then comment.

      November 24, 2011 at 8:18 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Who's "we"? You and your gerbil?

      November 24, 2011 at 8:26 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Why would I waste a moment of my time reading your interpretation of Biblical nonsense. It's all mindless opinion about nothing.

      November 24, 2011 at 8:29 am |
    • AvdBerg

      Atheist Steve
      The Bible is not of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). The truth is that the natural man (like yourself) is not able to understand it (1 Cor. 2:14). For this reason we preach mankind everywhere to repent and turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan (whose spirit you are of) unto God (Acts 26:18).

      Matthew 9:12. They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. The truth is that you are not able to acknowledge that you are sick (sinner).

      November 24, 2011 at 8:38 am |
    • AvdBerg

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
      The 'we' stands for all those that stand together with us on the journey of repentanc.

      November 24, 2011 at 8:40 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, it doesn't, you pretentious boob. It stands for you and your sister.

      Get over yourself. You're not unique.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:06 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I do think it's hilarious that you see yourself as some sort of messenger from god sent here to tell others what to do and how to live.

      Do the attendants in the insti tution let you use the computer or did you have to buy one for yourself?

      You're a nut-case.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:09 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      Nope...you're still just spouting ridiculous nonsense. The Bible is garbage...Satan doesn't exist...neither does God, sin, souls or any other stupid idea you have in your indoctrinated mind. If people like you put even a quarter of the effort you waste chasing rainbows into concrete legitimate learning the world would be a far better place. Your death cult of reward/punishment, hate/bigotry, anti-science/anti-learning will eventually disappear.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:12 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The whackbasket says:The ultimate plan of the Mormon Church and its authorities is to take all power to themselves, their President/Prophet becoming the king of the world.”
      --
      Bwahhhhahhahhahhahhahhhahahhahhahh. Comedy gold.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:16 am |
    • Chad

      @AtheistSteve Sorry to break it to you but your particular flavor of insanity is essentially no different than the others. Gotta love it when clowns like you resort to the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" ...."

      =>You aren't understanding what the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" is.
      The classic story goes something like this:
      Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman"

      Contrast that with:
      Person 1: "All employees of Wal-Mart ultimately report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 2: "FALSE! I dont report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 1: "Well, you aren't an employee of Wal-Mart"
      Person 2: "HAH!! No true Scotsman!!"

      The material point is, the criteria for membership. If the criteria is true (in this case employment) then the assertion of "no true scotsman" fails

      so, is Mitt Romney a Christian? Since he is NOT (Mormonism is NOT Christian), then AtheistSteves assertion fails, and AvdBerg is NOT engaging in the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy.

      Don't forget, Muslims "believe" in Jesus, but that doesn't make them Christian either.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:45 am |
    • Chad

      @AtheistSteve Sorry to break it to you but your particular flavor of insanity is essentially no different than the others. Gotta love it when clowns like you resort to the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" ...."

      =>You aren't understanding what the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" is.
      The classic story goes something like this:
      Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman"

      Contrast that with:
      Person 1: "All employees of Wal-Mart ultimately report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 2: "FALSE! I dont report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 1: "Well, you aren't an employee of Wal-Mart"
      Person 2: "HAH!! No true Scotsman!!"

      The material point is, the criteria for membership. If the criteria is true (in this case employment) then the assertion of "no true scotsman" fails

      so, is Mitt Romney a Christian? Since he is NOT (Mormonism is NOT Christian), then AtheistSteve assertion fails, and AvdBerg is NOT engaging in the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy.

      Don't forget, Muslims "believe" in Jesus, but that doesn't make them Christian either.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • Chad

      @AtheistSteve Sorry to break it to you but your particular flavor of insanity is essentially no different than the others. Gotta love it when clowns like you resort to the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" ...."

      =>You aren't understanding what the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" is.
      The classic story goes something like this:
      Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman"

      Contrast that with:
      Person 1: "All employees of Wal-Mart ultimately report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 2: "FALSE! I dont report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 1: "Well, you aren't an employee of Wal-Mart"
      Person 2: "HAH!! No true Scotsman!!"

      The material point is, the criteria for membership. If the criteria is true (in this case employment) then the assertion of "no true scotsman" fails

      so, is Mitt Romney a Christian? Since he is NOT (Mormonism is NOT Christian), then AtheistSteve assertion fails, and AvdBerg is NOT engaging in the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy .

      Don't forget, Muslims "believe" in Jesus, but that doesn't make them Christian either.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • Chad

      @AtheistSteve Sorry to break it to you but your particular flavor of insanity is essentially no different than the others. Gotta love it when clowns like you resort to the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" ...."

      =>You're understanding of the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" is badly flawed.
      The classic story goes something like this:
      Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman"

      Contrast that with:
      Person 1: "All employees of Wal-Mart ultimately report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 2: "FALSE! I dont report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 1: "Well, you aren't an employee of Wal-Mart"
      Person 2: "HAH!! No true Scotsman!!"

      The material point is, the criteria for membership. If the criteria is true (in this case employment) then the assertion of "no true scotsman" fails

      so, is Mitt Romney a Christian? Since he is NOT (Mormonism is NOT Christian), then AtheistSteve assertion fails, and AvdBerg is NOT engaging in the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy .

      Don't forget, Muslims "believe" in Jesus, but that doesn't make them Christian either.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:48 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      @Chad

      You're wrong. Mormonism is as much a christian faith as protestant, catholic or any other sect. They all use the Bible as the basis for their beliefs, Jesus is still their messiah...etc.etc. Just because they have an additional text(Book of Mormon) doesn't make their claims any less or more ridiculous than yours. Christians calling Mormons"not true christians" is indeed the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Try again....lol

      November 24, 2011 at 9:58 am |
    • Chad

      @AtheistSteve Sorry to break it to you but your particular flavor of insanity is essentially no different than the others. Gotta love it when clowns like you resort to the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" ...."

      =>You're understanding of the "no true Scotsman Fallacy" and its application here is badly flawed.
      The classic story goes something like this:
      Scotsman A: You know, laddie, no Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman B: Is that so? I seem to recall my cousin Angus (who is from Scotland) puts sugar in his porridge.
      Scotsman A: Aye... but no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
      The implication is that Angus is not a true Scotsman"

      Contrast that with:
      Person 1: "All employees of Wal-Mart ultimately report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 2: "FALSE! I dont report to Michael T. Duke"
      Person 1: "Well, you aren't an employee of Wal-Mart"
      Person 2: "HAH!! No true Scotsman!!"

      The material point is, the criteria for membership. If the criteria is true (in this case employment) then the assertion of "no true scotsman" fails

      so, is Mitt Romney a Christian? Since he is NOT (Mormonism is NOT Christian), then AtheistSteve assertion fails, and AvdBerg is NOT engaging in the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy .

      Don't forget, Muslims "believe" in Jesus, but that doesn't make them Christian either.

      November 24, 2011 at 9:59 am |
    • Chad

      WOW

      I apologize for the multiple posts, I kept getting a "Your server is undergoing maintenance, try again in a few minutes.." I had no idea it was caching them and would post when the server was back on line..

      my apolgies

      November 24, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • Chad

      @AtheistSteve "You're wrong. Mormonism is as much a christian faith as protestant, catholic or any other sect. They all use the Bible as the basis for their beliefs, Jesus is still their messiah...etc.etc. "

      =>nonsense
      Muslims "use" the bible (they believe Christians have distorted the true text)
      Jews use the bible
      Muslims "believe" in Jesus

      are you going to argue that Muslims and Jews are also Christians? lol

      Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he received "golden plates" from Gods angel from which he translated the book of Mormon.

      Mormons are not Christians.
      your logic is badly flawed AtheistSteve

      November 24, 2011 at 10:12 am |
    • TheTruthFairy

      How is it that Mormons are not Christians, and how is it so easy for you to dismiss the book or Mormon while at the same time accepting the Bible hook line and sinker?

      November 24, 2011 at 10:20 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      First Jews use the Torah, Muslims use the Qu'ran. All Arbahamic faiths are based on the original Jewish Laws.
      But Jews and Muslims do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. If you believe Jesus is the son of God(as Mormons do) then you are Christian. After all Jesus Christ is the foundation of Christianity. Maybe...just maybe you could argue that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian since they follow what Jews and Muslims believe about Jesus, but with Mormons you're dead wrong.

      November 24, 2011 at 10:34 am |
    • Chad

      AtheistSteve "First Jews use the Torah, Muslims use the Qu'ran."

      =>not really.. as usual you got a part right.
      Jews use the Tanakh (aka Masoretic Text) which essentially corresponds to the entire OT, the "Torah" refers to the first 5 books.only, not the entire Jewish canon.
      Muslims ALSO believe in that text, HOWEVER they feel it has been corrupted and that it was re-revealed to Mohammed.

      @AtheistSteve "If you believe Jesus is the son of God(as Mormons do) then you are Christian "
      =>100% false
      James 2:19 "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder"

      merely recognizing Jesus as the son of God does NOT make one a Christian. Satan recognizes that, is he a Christian?

      November 24, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • TheTruthFairy

      @Chad
      Can you please tell me specifically what makes a person Christian?

      November 24, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      When anyone of you who believes in a deity starts saying the other is wrong, you make yourselves look like bigger fools. Mitt Romney may be a Mormon but he believes in the same jesus that you do. The bottom line is that outside of your buybull-the big book of mythology, you have no proof for anything!! Mitt's belief should not be in question any more than Obama's should, thus the reason there is something called separation of church and state.

      @Chad: What exactly makes you an authority figure on who is a true christian? You believe in the non-existent and so taking anything you say with any form of validity is difficult. If you took the time to do some research, Mormonism is considered christian...you don't get to decide if it is or not, even Atheists recognize it as a christian based religion. The only difference between them and you is the way you have chosen to interpret the buybull. Get off your self-righteous high horse child and read a real book!! You're not so special and your end will be the same as anyone else's-no afterlife, nothing...point finale!

      November 24, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • Chad

      @TheTruthFairy "Can you please tell me specifically what makes a person Christian?"

      1. Recognize that we are currently estranged from the God of Abraham due to our sin
      2. Recognize that the God of Abraham has made a provision for that in the perfect life and atoning sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ on the cross
      3. Accept by faith that atoning work on your behalf.

      that's it.

      BUT, the key is believing in the God of Abraham and His Son.
      1. Saying you believe in God, but ascribing to that god acts that the God of Abraham did NOT do (such as calling mohammed or joseph smith prophets, believing that God delivered the Book of Covenants, Pearl of great Price, etc...) means that you are NOT believing in the God of Abraham. You are believing in something else and calling it God.
      2. Saying that you believe in Jesus, but ascribing acts to Him that He did not do (delivering plates to Joseph Smith), means you are NOT believing in the real Jesus. You are believing in something else and calling it Jesus
      3. As they believe that salvation can be earned by a combination of faith and good works, they are not accepting the atoning work of Jesus as Complete.

      Mormons are not Christians

      November 24, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
    • TheTruthFairy

      @Chad
      You make a really good point, but I think it is only relevant to your point of view. How do you know with any degree of certainty that Mohamed or Joseph Smith were not prophets? Your whole opinion is based on your own self-defined certainties, but what makes you so certain. How did you arrive at the conclusions that allow you to dismiss all other claims that are equally unbelievable?

      November 24, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      "BUT, the key is believing in the God of Abraham and His Son.
      1. Saying you believe in God, but ascribing to that god acts that the God of Abraham did NOT do (such as calling mohammed or joseph smith prophets, believing that God delivered the Book of Covenants, Pearl of great Price, etc...) means that you are NOT believing in the God of Abraham. You are believing in something else and calling it God.
      2. Saying that you believe in Jesus, but ascribing acts to Him that He did not do (delivering plates to Joseph Smith), means you are NOT believing in the real Jesus. You are believing in something else and calling it Jesus
      3. As they believe that salvation can be earned by a combination of faith and good works, they are not accepting the atoning work of Jesus as Complete"

      This is too funny. So in other words if it doesn't match YOUR interpretation of the dusty old myth then they are wrong. Your opinion is worthless. You have no idea if the acts you attribute to your God are correct any more than they do. Who are you to speak for the actions of God or Jesus? Are you also a god who knows what has transpired 2000 years ago and can distinguish between actual and fake? Your replies suggest not. You know that Jews consider the Bible to be just as suspect as you consider the Book of Mormon. It's just a case of the kettle calling the pot black. So you sit back and go "Oh yeah...that Jesus guy. He's got the real message. But that Mohammed guy and that Joseph Smith guy, well those two are crazy. Well guess what? You're all stark raving bonkers and none of the garbage you spout is worth a damn. It's all fake and you've been duped.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @TheTruthFairy "You make a really good point, but I think it is only relevant to your point of view"
      =>Yes, if the "god" that muslims believe in is real (the one that spoke to Mohammed). then I'm in big trouble.
      =>Likewise, if the "jesus" that mormons believe in is true (the one that delivered plates to Joseph Smith), then I'm in big trouble.

      I believe in the Jesus Christ that is the Son of the God of Abraham, the Jewish Messiah written of in the Gospels. The one that has yet to return to the earth.

      @TheTruthFairy "How do you know with any degree of certainty that Mohamed or Joseph Smith were not prophets? Your whole opinion is based on your own self-defined certainties, but what makes you so certain. How did you arrive at the conclusions that allow you to dismiss all other claims that are equally unbelievable?"

      =>I have listed my specific reasons many times so I won't cut and paste them again. I grew up in an agnostic family, and didn't believe in Jesus initially (always believed in God but not Jesus), after reading the NT with an eye towards finding the holes in the resurrection story, I instead became convinced of its truth.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Yeah, Chad is a little slow on the uptake and doesn't understand that presupposing the truth of your own position doesn't count as an argument in favor of that position.

      November 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • Chad

      @ John Richardson Yeah, Chad is a little slow on the uptake and doesn't understand that presupposing the truth of your own position doesn't count as an argument in favor of that position"

      presupposing: Tacitly assume at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action that something is the case.

      I guess you missed the last part of my post "after reading the NT with an eye towards finding the holes in the resurrection story, I instead became convinced of its truth.".

      November 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
    • TheTruthFairy

      @Chad
      Let’s say you meet a fellow by the name of Harry, and for whatever reason every time you’re together Harry acts a certain way. Now let’s say that Bob meets someone else, we’ll call her Sally, and for whatever reason he acts completely opposite with Sally than he does when he’s chillin with you. If you and Sally were to get together, you would have totally different stories to tell each other, and either one of you would believe you are talking about the same Harry. It is only your perception of Harry that makes him sound like a different person, but the reality is that your Harry, and Sally`s Harry are one in the same whether you want to believe it or not. Perception is only certainty to the person perceiving it.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
    • TheTruthFairy

      *Second line should read: Now let’s say that Harry meets someone else...

      November 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • Pompous Ass Detector

      Romney’s faith is not in the true and living God but rather the god of this world (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Gal. 4:8).

      As you can see, Mr. Berg reads minds, and is not subject to Jesus' "judge not, lest ye be judged". He is better than you all, and he KNOWS it.

      November 24, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @TheTruthFairy "Let’s say you meet a fellow by the name of Harry, and for whatever reason every time you’re together Harry acts a certain way. Now let’s say that Harry meets someone else, we’ll call her Sally, and for whatever reason he acts completely opposite with Sally than he does when he’s chillin with you. If you and Sally were to get together, you would have totally different stories to tell each other, and either one of you would believe you are talking about the same Harry. It is only your perception of Harry that makes him sound like a different person, but the reality is that your Harry, and Sally`s Harry are one in the same whether you want to believe it or not. Perception is only certainty to the person perceiving it."

      =>in your story, there is no difference in "perceptions" the difference is in actuality. As you point out the difference i in the way that "Harry" acts when around one vs the other. Sally and I aren't perceiving something different, Harry is acting different creating two different Harry's if you will.

      The God of Abraham doesn't do that, he is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. He doesn't act differently, which is precisely how we know we can rely on Him.

      November 24, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • TheTruthFairy

      @Chad
      The physical person you and Sally know as Harry is the same for both of you; it is your perception of who he is, which is formed by your interactions with him, that is different. Just because he acts differently around you both does not mean that he is two different people. You can say “that’s not the Harry I know”, but you cannot say “that is not Harry”. Get it?

      November 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @AvdBerg

      You said: "The Mormon's hidden agenda is a real threat to every American and the people of this world. We invite you to read the whole article and then comment."

      The Mormons are not the threat. The Christian Right A.K. A. Evangelicals would take over the world. They are the threat.

      Your thoughts and interpretations on the bible are the result of the bible being ambiguous. The product of, as Woody Allen would say: "An underachieving god".

      An ambiguous bible can never be an infallible text. An almighty god would be able to construct a bible that would be interpreted the same by all humans. The bible was made by man. Possibly some of the same men, that made god Himself.

      You, like all believers want to start from the assumption, that there this a god, and you have discovered his ident_ity.

      Even if you choose the Christian god, you cannot agree on god's will. There are over 1,000 DIFFERENT denominations of Christianity in North America. Each KNOWS the wants of Jesus. Each can show you Bible passages that SHOW they are right and the others wrong.

      Like Chad and Evan and Fred and all the rest, all they say is just their opinion. Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one. None are special.

      Cheers!

      November 24, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
    • Chad

      @TheTruthFairy "The physical person you and Sally know as Harry is the same for both of you; it is your perception of who he is, which is formed by your interactions with him, that is different. Just because he acts differently around you both does not mean that he is two different people. You can say “that’s not the Harry I know”, but you cannot say “that is not Harry”. Get it?"

      =>the different perceptions are created because Harry acts differently (you specifically pointed out that Harry acts differently when around me vs Sally)
      If Harry hadn't acted differently, the different perceptions would NOT have been created
      God doesn't act differently
      Therefor God doesn't create different perceptions.
      Therefor, if different perceptions are encountered, they must be referring to different gods.

      The only way your example works, is if Harry acts exactly the same, but Sally and I come away with different perceptions THEN you could point to the person as creating the difference in their mind when in reality they were both talking to the same Harry.

      your logic needs work 🙂

      November 24, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • Reality

      Putting the final kibosh on Christianity :

      The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

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

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

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

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

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

      Amen

      Some added references concerning the historic Jesus:

      o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
      2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
      – a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication–
      3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
      – "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"
      4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html–"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
      5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
      6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
      7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html
      8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
      joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm
      9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
      10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
      (Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
      by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
      11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission

      November 24, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Fordham Jock

      Chad,
      Just because someone does not fit your definition of what a Christian is, is not the determining factor in what makes them a Christian, or not, (or are YOU the grand judge?) You say you know all this crap about all that crap. How exactly do you know, what you think you know ?

      November 24, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Chad Holes in the resurrection story? Here's a hole. Jesus could have marched straight into the temple and convinced EVERYONE that he was resurrected, but didn't. Why? Is this more of those "mysterious ways" that god works in, the god who cares what you believe more than anything in the world and then plays silly shell games? No, all we get, even IF we believe the stories are all 100% true, which is an absurd approach to ANY outlandish tale, is an empty tomb and some appearance after which the disciples had to convince themselves that they really were with Jesus. There are lots of empty tombs in the world. This isn't even sort of evidence for the tomb being emptied through resurrection. And the later appearance, the story itself makes you wonder how much the disciples had to talk themselves up to sufficient credulity to believe this baloney. No, Chad, you knew what you wanted to conclude and concluded it. Big deal.

      November 24, 2011 at 6:37 pm |
    • Chad

      @Reality "He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of Jerusalem.Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
      ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the Caesar myths"

      => 100% false, on both accounts.
      1. There was a grave
      2. The account of Jesus death/resurrection was NOT embellished over time, it was in written form 20-30 years after his death, and his followers were being persecuted starting immediately after his death demonstrating that there was a wide spread belief of a resurrected Jesus immediately. The resurrection story was NOT invented later, it was demonstrably in place immediately.

      The facts:
      Jesus was buried in a marked grave owned by Joseph of Arimathea Luke 23:50, Mark 15:43, Matthew 27:57, John 19:38.
      That grave was found to be empty 3 days later.

      Hundreds of Jesus followers reported seeing a resurrected Jesus and would go to their death in subsequent years refusing to disavow that view.

      A small but growing community of believers in these events, known initially as "The Way" proclaiming a resurrected Jesus as the central point of their religion immediately formed, grew, and was actively persecuted by Jewish religious leaders as heretical.

      Within 20-30 years following the reported resurrection, written docu ments were circulating making the claim of a resurrected Jesus. This at a time when many witnesses of those events were alive to have countered their claims.

      All that was necessary to show that this new religion was foundationally flawed, was to point to the grave that still contained the body of Jesus. That was not done, because the grave was empty.

      IF there had been no grave, the persecutors could simply have pointed out that fact. How could the followers claim an empty grave when there was no grave?

      So, there had to be a grave, and if the body was still there, they could have simply pointed out that fact and killed the new sect instantly. How can you claim a resurrected leader when the body sits there?

      So, the only remaining accusation that could have been leveled was that of grave robbery. That the disciples stole the body to fulfill (on their own) the prophecy that Jesus made.

      But, if the disciples stole the body, they would have known the entire basis for their new religion was a lie.. Now, would a person endure torture refusing to renounce what they knew to be a lie?
      Lots of people die believing a lie, but they think ITS TRUE. The disciples would have known it wasn't.

      November 24, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Chad

      @John Richardson "Holes in the resurrection story? Here's a hole. Jesus could have marched straight into the temple and convinced EVERYONE that he was resurrected, but didn't. Why? Is this more of those "mysterious ways" that god works in, the god who cares what you believe more than anything in the world and then plays silly shell games?"

      =>Don't know why, I definitely would have done it differently. He respects our free will a great deal.

      @John Richardson "IF we believe the stories are all 100% true, which is an absurd approach to ANY outlandish tale,"

      =>agreed, critical investigation is the way to go

      @John Richardson " is an empty tomb and some appearance after which the disciples had to convince themselves that they really were with Jesus."
      =>they didnt have to convince themselves, had that been the case would it make any sense that they would endure torture for it? All of them? They were 100% convinced, you can try and argue some kind of mass hallucination, but they were convinced.

      @John Richardson " This isn't even sort of evidence for the tomb being emptied through resurrection."
      => see above, resurrection or grave robbery.. that's all it could have been..

      November 24, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Chad He respects our free will????? If the big cut off is between those who believe vs those who don't, making everyone in the world have to believe a band of zealots isn't the way one shows respect for free will. It's a way to doom everyone who has ever heard a zealot spout obvious untruths and those under the sway of other zealots with tales no more absurd than this one. You asked for a hole in the resurrection story and I provided one. Case closed.

      As for allowing themselves to be tortured, etc. Flip back to the tale of the time spent with resurrected Jesus and how the disciples discussed amongst themselves whether it really was Jesus. These guys were already in crisis over the crucifixion. They invested themselves heavily into believing in Jesus. When he got croaked, they were at a tipping point. Either accept that they were all in on a fraud, or scrounge around for some reason to validate their psychic investment by continuing to believe. Even WITH this bias towards belief, apparently multiple hours with a resurrected Jesus still required everyone encouraging the others to believe and only after this encouragement did they do so.

      Look at some of the psychological studies on true believers and how they persist in the face of overwhelming evidence that their faith is misplaced.

      And as for the "torture test", why would Buddhist monks set themselves on fire if they weren't right? Ditto suicide bombers? Easy. All they have to be is blind to how wrong they are. Ditto Christian martyrs.

      November 24, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • Chad

      @John Richardson "He respects our free will?????"
      =>yes

      @John Richardson "You asked for a hole in the resurrection story and I provided one. Case closed."
      =>I must have missed it, what was the hole you pointed out? FYI, "it's all nonsense" isn't "finding a hole" or "Jesus could have marched straight into the temple and convinced EVERYONE that he was resurrected, but didn't." isn't a "hole" lol
      Just because Jesus didn't do what you think He should have done doesn't make the resurrection narrative false.. obviously.. 🙂

      @John Richardson "As for allowing themselves to be tortured, etc. Flip back to the tale of the time spent with resurrected Jesus and how the disciples discussed amongst themselves whether it really was Jesus. These guys were already in crisis over the crucifixion. They invested themselves heavily into believing in Jesus. When he got croaked, they were at a tipping point."
      => yep, you're starting to understand. These guys had ALL scattered, their leader had been crucified, those guys absolutely believed he would become King, the promised Messiah, the redeemer of Israel. They were hiding from the Jewish authorities in locked rooms. They were demoralized, scared, running for their lives.

      @John Richardson "Either accept that they were all in on a fraud, or scrounge around for some reason to validate their psychic investment by continuing to believe."
      =>hmm.. psychic investment?? They were scattered, gone, hiding, terrified.. When the women told them that the tomb was empty, they were surprised, didn't believe what they said. They thought he was dead. Thomas didn't believe it until he put his hands in the wounds.

      @John Richardson: "Look at some of the psychological studies on true believers and how they persist in the face of overwhelming evidence that their faith is misplaced."
      =>so you're going with the "mass hysteria" theory... doesn't fit with the situation.. their mental state at the time as you point out. They didnt get together and figure out how to salva ge the situation for personal benefit, they were depressed and heading out of town.

      @John Richardson: "And as for the "torture test", why would Buddhist monks set themselves on fire if they weren't right? Ditto suicide bombers? Easy. All they have to be is blind to how wrong they are. Ditto Christian martyrs."
      =>Buddhist monks and suicide bombers think that what they are doing is right. They are convinced.
      You're trying to make a case that these folks, who had traveled with Jesus, believed Him to be the Messiah, had SEEN him killed, were being chased by authorities, demoralized, ALL JUST SUDDENLY decided to believe he was alive and hallucinated actually seeing and talking to Him.
      Why?
      What did they have to gain?
      What triggered this 180 degree about face, all these people did a 180 within days, why? Remember, NONE of them believed it for several days.

      November 25, 2011 at 12:03 am |
    • TheTruthFairy

      @Chad
      My logic does not need work. It is you that needs work, because you fail to grasp the simple point that I am trying to make. My example used extremes, but the same logic applies whether the differences are extreme or minor. YOUR view of god is formed by YOUR interpretation of YOUR cherry picked verses from YOUR chosen holy book. There is no more evidence for your interpretation than there is for any other, so I ask you once again, what makes you so certain, and how is it so easy for you to dismiss other extraordinary claims such as “golden plates” while at the same time seeing no flaws in the extraordinary claims in your book such as “900+ year old Noah”?

      November 25, 2011 at 6:11 am |
    • Seraphina

      John R-The disciples were free to go back to their day jobs, which each of them had. There was no reason for them to go out into all the nations of the earth and proclaim the gospel if they did not believe in it. Why would they ALL risk their lives to go to distant foreign lands to spread the gospels? They could have just run away to another land , never to be heard of again, instead they preached the gospel and died for their belief. Not one them doubted that Jesus indeed was the messiah. the savior.

      Probably, you can explain why Peter who first denied Jesus during his crucifiction later turned 360 degrees in his faith and was one of the greatest of the apostles to spread the good news?

      Each one of these apostles knew the truth about Jesus otherwise they would not have consistently all gone out to spread the good news.

      November 25, 2011 at 9:24 am |
    • John Richardson

      @Chad & @ Seraphina True believers quite generally don't go back to their day jobs, especially since they have generally alienated themselves from their prior lives long before some day of reckoning comes and goes and the expected wonders fizzled. So the true believer concocts some tale about how something wonderful really did happen kinda behind the scenes, as did Jesus's disciples. The delusionality they exhibited is sadly not all that rare.

      The resurrection never happened. Get used to it.

      November 25, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Seraphina

      John R-You ignored my question about Peter. Peter denied the Lord not once, not twice but thrice but went on become one of the pillars of the Christian faith. Why? if he did not believe in Christ as the messiah why would he spread the gospels?

      November 25, 2011 at 9:53 am |
    • Chad

      @ John Richardson "True believers quite generally don't go back to their day jobs, especially since they have generally alienated themselves from their prior lives long before some day of reckoning comes and goes and the expected wonders fizzled"

      =>not sure what you mean by "true believers", sure sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument to me 🙂

      In any case, Peter/John/James/Nathaniel returned to fishing (John 21)
      Several other disciples encountered Jesus heading out of town (from Jerusalem to Moza) Lk 24, Mk 16

      The Gospels clearly records them as demoralized and dispersing.

      Now, you can make up YOUR OWN version of events, and try to sell that, but then you have to explain why you feel that the writers of the gospels lied, and somehow you know the true version of events? 🙂

      FYI, secular critical scholars view Gospel details such as Peter denying Jesus, the disciples hiding from authorities, etc.. as clear evidence of the AUTHENTICITY of the Gospel accounts as they reflect negatively on the subjects.

      November 25, 2011 at 10:57 am |
    • Chad

      @TheTruthFairy My logic does not need work. It is you that needs work, because you fail to grasp the simple point that I am trying to make. My example used extremes, but the same logic applies whether the differences are extreme or minor. YOUR view of god is formed by YOUR interpretation of YOUR cherry picked verses from YOUR chosen holy book."
      =>well, your example used a person Harry,who creates different impressions by acting differently to two different people. As I pointed out, that fails when it is attempted to be applied to the God of Abraham who does NOT behave differently.

      It is not clear what you are trying to say now. are you trying to say that different people interpret the NT/OT differently, or are you trying to go back to the "Bible, Book of Mormon, Qur'an are all different views on the same person" argument?

      November 25, 2011 at 11:09 am |
    • John Richardson

      Look, Seraphina, if you are going to go into the discussion presupposing the literal truth of these bible stories, then just go ahead and presuppose the resurrection. Finding "evidence" for its truth by presupposing the truth of other details from the same narrative is just ridiculous.

      Oh, there were a couple of places where Jesus was either off by himself (Gethsemane) or off doing battle with only Satan present or for that matter hauled before the Roman authorities and yet the narrators of these tales just keep babbling on as though they were there to witness when they couldn't possibly have been. It's LITERATURE. It's not raw data that can be mined for hard evidence. If you don't get even THAT, there is little hope for you.

      On the other hand, you CAN point out that certain aspects of some story don't add up even by the story's own logic. That's what I was doing. People do it all the time even with stories that don't even pretend to be anything other than fiction and investigators of course do it all the time with the stories that "persons of interest" tell, and sometimes concoct and tell before they notice let alone fix all the holes.

      November 25, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • John Richardson

      @Chad True believers are people who so desire to believe grandiose things that they become all but immune to empirical or logical evidence against it. It has absolutely zero to do with the "no true scotsman" fallacy. (Oh, btw, you were right in a recent post in noting that some non-believers have been citing the fallacy incorrectly.)

      November 25, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
    • Seraphina

      John R-It is your version Vs. the Apostles first hand account.

      btw., you still have not been able to substantiate or provide any reason
      a)for the radical transformation that took place in Peter's life . How he went from denying the Lord at crucifiction but later turned 360 degress in his faith in the Lord and go on spread the good news.
      b) why none of the disciples choose to go incognito after having witnessed the resurrected Lord and savior.The easiest way out for them would have to go away to another land and keep silent.
      Something about the Lord, touched them deeply that they ALL consistently decided to share the gospels around the world risking their own lives for the sake of sharing the truth.

      To a believer like me you can't just simply say Jesus did not resurrect, how do you know he did not? Your unbelief is no proof.

      I know Jesus is the risen Savior because of various reasons starting with the first hand account and much more! I know that I know that I know Jesus is who he said he was.

      I am going to let Chad take over....

      November 25, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
    • Bob

      @Seraphina, so how come your "omnipotent"sky daddy needed all his dead-son-on-a-stick hoopla? Why not do the saving thing without all that scapegoat nonsense (which was stolen from earlier supersti-tions than yours, BTW).

      Pretty crazy supersti-tions you Christians have. And not original, at that, just stolen from earlier primitives. Your god is a myth. Get over it already and join the modern world.

      November 25, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • John Richardson

      @Seraphina 360 degrees is a full circle. I think you meant 180 degrees. In any case, How many zillions of cases do you think there are of people concealing their relationship with someone who is in big trouble and later, when things settle down somewhat and/or they themselves get cagier, become bolder? But they also got only so much bolder, or else they wouldn't have done all that secret bread pinching and hiding in catacombs stuff, eh?

      But again, you are presupposing the truth of bits and pieces of a story as evidence for the truth of other bits and pieces of the same story. The whole business you are engaged in is intellectually bankrupt.

      November 25, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Seraphina/Chad
      On December 25th, long long ago, a child was born unto a virgin.
      Following a star shining in the east, 3 great kings of far off lands came to adorn the child with gifts to recognize his holiness.
      By the age of 12, the child was teaching learned men valuable lessons.
      By the age of 30, He had 12 disciples with whom he travelled the land performing miracles and spread the word of His ministry.
      Alas, He was betreayed to his enemies and crucified.
      Upon His death, he was buried for three days – but miraculously rose from the dead!The child was known by many names, including The Truth, The Light and God's Shephard.
      Thousands of years later, the essential elements of His biography were plagiarized by unscrupulous Shamans looking to start a new religion and poor Horus was all but forgotten.

      November 25, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @John Richardson: "Oh, there were a couple of places where Jesus was either off by himself (Gethsemane) or off doing battle with only Satan present or for that matter hauled before the Roman authorities and yet the narrators of these tales just keep babbling on as though they were there to witness when they couldn't possibly have been"

      =>funny how you personally have no problem confidently telling us what Jesus did and didn't do, when you are removed by 2000 years from those events, where the authors were in some cases just a "stones throw away" – Matthew 26)

      As close friends it is entirely believable that Jesus would relate activities to them and they would record them in the Gospels. I can't imagine how anyone wouldn't find that believable even if they found the events related unbelievable.

      @John Richardson: "It's not raw data that can be mined for hard evidence. If you don't get even THAT, there is little hope for you."

      =>well, you stand (virtually) alone in considering the Gospels made up.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

      @John Richardson: "On the other hand, you CAN point out that certain aspects of some story don't add up even by the story's own logic"

      =>such as? Examples please.

      November 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @Doc Vestibule On December 25th, long long ago, a child was born unto a virgin.Following a star shining in the east, 3 great kings of far off lands came to adorn the child with gifts to recognize his holiness. By the age of 12, the child was teaching learned men valuable lessons. By the age of 30, He had 12 disciples with whom he travelled the land performing miracles and spread the word of His ministry. Alas, He was betreayed to his enemies and crucified. Upon His death, he was buried for three days – but miraculously rose from the dead!The child was known by many names, including The Truth, The Light and God's Shephard. Thousands of years later, the essential elements of His biography were plagiarized by unscrupulous Shamans looking to start a new religion and poor Horus was all but forgotten."

      =>so, a group of people in 50AD "created" the Jesus story.. .lol. ok, lets tear it apart.
      1. Jesus is a historical figure, there is NO SERIOUS DOUBT of that truth.

      "Most critical historians agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher and healer in Judaea,[18] that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[19] Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement. Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating a future apocalypse.[" – wikipedia

      2. The story of Jesus virgin birth bears -zero- resemblance to that of Horus "Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[5][6] and used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[7] to conceive her son. Once Isis knew she was pregnant with Horus, she fled to the Nile Delta marshlands to hide from her brother Set who jealously killed Osiris and who she knew would want to kill their son.[8] There Isis bore a divine son, Horus" . Note that the father was resurrected, so there was no "virgin" birth.

      3. I didn't find any reference to far off kings bearing gifts at the birth of Horus, Horus as a 12 year old boy teaching learned men valuable lessons, 12 disciples, death by crucifixion, resurrection after 3 days, but as I'm sure you would never be so intellectually dishonest as to take the narrative of Jesus, ascribe key elements of it in complete fabrication to an egyptian god and see if some of that might some how create a false impression in those that couldnt be bothered to do 10 minutes of research, I"ll just ask you to provide pointers to your source material for the life of Horus.

      November 25, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • Seraphina

      John R-
      It is all about the first hand account of the apostles which is the compelling evidence that cannot be argued away by your frivolous suppositions that lacks any merit.

      The disciples chose to share the gospels risking their lives because they were with Jesus, they knew Jesus, they had witnessed all of the great works, the crucifixion and they saw the resurrected Jesus. Having been around God himself and having witnessed the amazing works they were radically transformed to become who they became-Ambassadors for Christ.

      Peter’s faith started at Point A in his walk with Jesus, he turned 180 degrees and denied Jesus when Jesus was crucified and he turned a full 360 degree back to his faith in Jesus and went on to become a wonderful messenger of the truth.
      What does that say? The disciples sure had their struggles in faith in the darkest moment at the cross, but upon resurrection the truth dawned on them! That tried and tested faith was the catalyst that sealed their belief in the Savior and the messiah. It was this truth about the risen Lord that took them to far away lands to share with the rest of mankind!

      I will leave you with John 20:29.

      Doc V-
      Horus? I would not confuse mythology with history.

      November 26, 2011 at 10:06 am |
    • AtheistSteve

      "It is all about the first hand account of the apostles which is the compelling evidence that cannot be argued away by your frivolous suppositions that lacks any merit."

      First hand accounts? What makes you believe that? You do know that the 4 canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not penned by these apostles. The actual authors are anonymous as agreed upon by biblical scholars and didn't emerge until 20-70 years after Jesus' death. The entire story of the birth, ministry and death of Jesus is suspect for the same reason that you would be unable to recite verbatim from memory every speech given by Barack Obama since his inauguration. And not today but 20-70 years from now. Results from a round of the telephone game would be more reliable than the broken historical accounts found in the Bible. Also the existence or not of an actual person in the character of Jesus is moot. Jesus if he existed was no more divine that our present day blowhard Pat Robertson and stories of him performing miracles speaks more to an early version of an urban legend. A written story of miraculous events is no more plausible or acceptable as fact than modern day testimony of UFO abductions or BigFoot encounters.

      November 26, 2011 at 12:21 pm |
    • observer

      Here we have two men, (in two of the gospels)Matthew and John, who testify about another man they knew intimately. They say Jesus taught He was the promised Messiah, the Savior of all mankind, who called for an allegiance of both faith and obedience. They testify that Jesus verified these claims by working numerous miracles, acts of supernatural power.

      Both witnesses claim Jesus was brutally executed and buried. Both affirm He appeared to them alive after his death, spending time with them, teaching them, sharing meals with them, and offering many other proofs of his resurrection. Their testimony is not based on a fleeting glimpse in a crowd. It's based on detailed, personal, face-to-face discourse with Jesus on numerous occasions over an extended period of time after the resurrection. These experiences turned them from skeptics into confident believers.
      What extrinsic evidence exists to counter these witnesses? There are no contrary witnesses to these events. In fact, all others corroborate the content of the testimonies in question in that, John and Matthew are model witnesses.

      A witness who has personal knowledge of the subject matter has the ultimate final authority of what his testimony is. Therefore the testimony of Matthew and John stands.

      November 27, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
  14. AtheistSteve

    The fight to pick a GOP leader has so far been "anyone besides Mitt". Almost every other candidate has risen to the top in polls only to trip over their own tongues. Currently Newt leads the race but his comments about immigration during their last debate will upset the majority of right wingers who detest the very idea of amnesty. But regardless of who wins the GOP candidacy Obama will wipe the floor with them in the presidential debates.

    November 24, 2011 at 5:22 am |
    • Bob

      Indeed, if they don't trip over their own shoelaces and misdeeds before they get onto that floor. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I've never seen such a slate of wacko candidates. I'd vote for 'Bama over any of the current Republican slate.

      November 25, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
  15. hippypoet

    Lilith

    From the rib of the first
    finest beauty came.
    But she was the second in line to man's immoral claim.
    Of equal mind and body she was of her own.
    Let the lesson of the decision of one be known.

    Wisdom of Cain

    As told by teacher taught,
    years after their truth tested by enemies fought.
    Such wisdom as this or that,
    where to come and who to laugh at,
    Neither true nor tested,
    by his heart he bested.

    True wisdom is derrived by path sought,
    not by appearence of look or Lot.

    Should i walk here nor there.
    Nay i say!
    Walk and walk everywhere...

    Death

    Patiently silent by St. Peter's gate,
    ichinly nervious, there you wait,
    terror made in minds eye man's creation lie,
    for the one whose cloaked and carries the die,
    he has your number and with him you say goodbye!
    Two coins for the man with the ore,
    trafficing souls, he is the pimp, you are the who-re.

    Religion

    Sweet perfume ferried on heavens voice,
    the saint lives life never questioning the currurpt rejoice.
    As you climb the steps looking for your indulgence,
    you indulge only pathic minds lacking of true experience.
    Reach the top and realize you must go back to hence you came,
    so cold in winter the indulgence you now put to flame.
    Now caught between an endless tug of war,
    there is no escaping of this buttered who-re.

    I believe at this point my feelings for this crap is well covered, so i give you these lovely religious poems to read.
    Enjoy!

    November 24, 2011 at 1:32 am |
    • John Richardson

      Hey, I'm up for a little poetry slam down! Try THIS on for size!

      Without Peer – by John Richardson

      He stirs his beer
      To make it fizz
      Cause that's the kinda guy
      He is

      He licks meringue
      Off lemon pies
      He isn't like
      Those other guys

      November 24, 2011 at 8:44 am |
  16. Michael Weston

    My name is Michael Weston and I used to be a spy...When confronted by a potentially hostile crowd, the spy always seeks to divert attention from himself by accusing someone in the crowd of being a traitor, heretic, or thief. Attack a hostile group's value system, and you only unite it and make it stronger. But by targeting an individual within the group, you sow the seeds of dissension, giving you the opportunity to escape...Now if I could only find who is responsible for burning me. Are you with me, Sam?

    November 24, 2011 at 1:26 am |
    • Sam

      You misspelled your last name "Michael". Now who are you really?

      November 24, 2011 at 8:52 am |
    • Michael Weston

      Alrighty then, you caught me, sir. My name is Charles Findly, attorney for the real the Westen family. Can I pour you a scotch while we discuss our business?

      November 24, 2011 at 12:41 pm |
  17. Caveman Cliff

    The Mormons need to throw off the yoke of insanity and join the real world in dealing with real problems.
    It doesn't take a religion to make an uptight prude an uptight prude. It just gives them talking points based in fantasy.
    Romney doesn't have a chance. None of them do. You might as well dig up that McCain geezer again for all the difference it will make.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:27 am |
  18. CSX

    His god was a sinner and a man who became a god. But that does not matter comapred to us needing a fiscal real conservative.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:18 am |
  19. Thank you CNN for giving us another article to trash!

    I was starting to wonder if everyone had gone home.....

    November 24, 2011 at 12:13 am |
  20. Bibbleton

    Mormons and Scientologists are the very worst we have in the USA. Romney is just soaking up money while he runs. I doubt he really cares anymore about winning. He just wants the fringe benefits of running. He doesn't seem totally clueless, so he probably knows he can't win. Soak up that ole money, Romney! It's all a scam anyway.

    November 24, 2011 at 12:12 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.