Your take: Comments on Jesus deniers
Jesus depicted healing a sick child.
April 8th, 2012
09:37 PM ET

Your take: Comments on Jesus deniers

Our story on a small cadre of authors challenging the existence of Jesus Christ drew almost 5,000 comments on Easter Sunday, with some upset that we did the story, others objecting to its publication on Easter, and plenty of others defending the article and the run date and debating the merits and implications of the debate.

Of course, most comments had nothing to do with our story, revolving instead around the debate about legitimacy of religion itself.

A sampling of the criticism:

Easter on CNN

You've gone too far.

While I am an advocate of spiritual exploration – by atheists to disprove or by the faithful to validate – running an article questioning the very core of a religious belief system on a holy day is indelicate, to say the least. Will you question that Muhammad received the word of God, running similar articles during Ramadan? Or on Yom Kippur, draw on conjecture to argue that the Book of Life is for fools?

This is not journalism. This sensationalist pander.


I would like to see if CNN would dare run a story saying that Muhammad was a "myth" on the Muslim' s holiest holidays and that Abraham was a "myth" on the Jewish holidays. Go ahead CNN and give it a try and see what happens.


Every Easter?...I mean why a negative story every Easter?? It has become a running joke.



Many other readers took aim at the critics:


To those who are insulted by this article,

If your faith is so weak that it cannot stand up to being looked at from an objective, historical, evidence based perspective, then this article is the least of your problems.


It is ironic that so many christians are "offended" at a dialogue about religion sponsored by CNN instead of greeting the opportunity to express their views. Perhaps they are shamed that we all know they are surfing the web when they should be worshipping on Easter Sunday.

Others weighed in on the merits and upshot of the debate over Jesus' existence:


I do not doubt that a man named Jesus existed, and that he probably did preach about God. But I believe he was no different than any cult leader today that preaches about their own religious beliefs and gains a small number of followers. The difference with Jesus is that Christianity was already more wide spread, and the general population was very uneducated and easily influenced by a great orator. Do I actually believe their is a God, and Jesus is his son? No. But I'm sure the man existed.


It is actually more reasonable than not to conclude that Jesus was an actual living person. Whether or not he was "the Christ" is the only worthwhile point of debate. Regardless, many of the teachings of Jesus are worthy of people to take to heart whether they are Christians or not. As an agnostic, I take those things that are wise from any and all religions, and leave behind those things that are destructive.


I don't care whether he really existed or not. It's his story that never happened, at least the son of god part and dieing and coming back to life stuff. What matters to Christians is that he is a support system that is able to take the blame for all the bad stuff in your life so that you can move past them and continue living.

I was thinking about it the other day, and I think Jesus really is a great thing, because it allows people to psychologically take pressure, grief or guilt and remove the effects of anxiety and pressure that those feelings create. On the flipside it possible allows someone to conjure up Love by themselves.

I think Jesus is a psychological whipping boy for all things that people don't have or can't (don't want to?) deal with. So I think atheists and non-Christians (heck, maybe Christians themselves) are missing the point about the importance of Jesus to some people.

The Twitter conversation over the article was mostly complimentary:


Interesting debate from CNN's site about whether or not Jesus was a real person: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/?hpt=hp_c1


CNN asks: Did Jesus exist? http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/?hpt=hp_c2 Honestly, this is a topic I don't know much about. I'd like to learn more.


CNN interviews two Thoughtful Christian authors for this intriguing question–Craig A. Evans... http://fb.me/1idvhPxXD

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Easter • Jesus

soundoff (2,443 Responses)
  1. Miguel

    These authors who say Christ was not real are just looking to shock folks and sell their silly stories.

    Think about it – historical records and stories are replete with accounts of Jesus Christ life and travels, and many of them intersect with accounts of Romans and others. This would have to have been one of the greatest conspiracies ever to have been conducted... and most conspiracy theories are not true or correct – especially if more than a few people are involved – someone in a large group will always break the vow of secrecy etc....

    Does anyone think Christianity would have gained the foothold it did in Roman times and be sustained until today if Christ did not really exist and inspire people to follow his teachings?

    Oh and save the replies saying – well mythological figures have inspired people to follow them, true – but most had very limited stories about them and their religions went away in time. Christianity will not. Probably the only ones that could really be pointed out today as a large sustained religion are the Hindus and their many fantastical gods and equally grandiose stories.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • Horus

      Well I'm guessing you missed all the Roman History from the 3rd century CE on. Like when an empire as large as the Roman Empire forces conversion, and goes on a conquest murdering entire families, clergy of other religions, and destroying priceless contemporary philosophical and scientific data that disputed their newfound ideology. Notice much of the middle and all of the far East, where the Roman Empire never took hold, aren't Christian dominated. That would be because there wasn't a lasting effect of murderous, barbaric crusades to convert. Europe lay in ignorance for nearly a thousand years (Dark Ages). The world was proven round in the 3rd Century BCE.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Tony

      Yep. There is no way to prove that there are NO many gods or goddesses or aliens. However, there is enough mathematical, logical, and psychological proof that the god described in the bible (omnipotent, benevolent, and involved) does not exist.

      April 10, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
  2. Bill Watson

    There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist. It has never been proven. Anything else is just the fallible words of men.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • LinCA

      @Bill Watson

      You said, "There is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist. It has never been proven. Anything else is just the fallible words of men."
      The same goes for Pink Unicorns, Bob the Magical Blue Sock, the Tooth Fairy, Zeus and millions of other mythical beings. Do you believe in them, too?

      April 10, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Tony

      Yep. There is no way to prove that there are NO many gods or goddesses or aliens. However, there is enough mathematical, logical, and psychological proof that the god described in the bible (omnipotent, benevolent, and involved) does not exist...

      April 10, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
  3. SouthernCelt

    Dear CNN,
    The people you hire or publicize constantly question or criticize widely held beliefs. When you do report news it is politically slanted or opinionated by someone from outside the mainstream. You stopped reporting the news years ago and now only report opinion. This is not Journalism unless it is jaundiced. Walter Cronkite was believable. You are not. I will seek the news elsewhere from now on and never read your news again.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • sortakinda

      Amen. On the other hand, per the Godfather: "Keep you friends close and your enemies closer." CNN defies categorization. It is trash on so many levels.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • Bryan

      Isn't it interesting how a lot of their opinion shows up under their opinion section or various blogs?

      April 10, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Miguel

      A better response might be to check out their sponsors – and send them an email to their sites telling them you are no longer using their products since they have chosen to advertise on CNN. This always gets an advertisers attention and forces them to re-examine their ad time – which is what CNN and other stations live off of.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:31 am |
  4. Tammie

    That's it for me watching CNN I'm officially over this channel,I don't think they had a thought or care about how offensive this story would be to many people !!!

    April 10, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Sybaris

      But it would be OK with you if it was about Buddah, Ra, Zeus, Mithra, Mohammed or any other non-christian personality.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:23 am |
  5. MeMelvin

    What is distressing here is the timing and tone of the article. One other contributor suggest that if you were to publish an article on the Islamic faith on one of its high holy days that you would cause outrage and even violence in the Muslim world. He/she is right. Christianity has its history of violence, but has settled into a less aggressive belief.

    The same can not be said for Islam. It is as if while the teachings of Jesus are referenced and allegedly accepted in Islam, that Islam has learned from lessons at all from the earth history and religious past. Islam remains a violent political tool instead of a set of myths, legends, fables, parables, mysteries and mysticism.

    I can hardly wait for your denial of Mohammad on the celebratory day of his alleged ascent. You will be provoked violence in the world. Actually I am afraid of the response...

    April 10, 2012 at 10:15 am |
  6. brad

    Kinda funny, all the pics of Jesus show him as white along with his followers, when in actuallity, him and his initial followers were brown. Course, the only way to get white people to follow him was to make him white. Ahh, the average christian, poor, uneducated, racist. The religion of peace.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Adam

      Then you've never met a true follower of Christ.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  7. John

    One man walked the earth 2000 years ago. Hundred of years later, some group of people got together and wrote down the storys they were told by their parents, grandparents, and elders. You cannot tell me the storys had not changed from the time they happened to the time they were recorded. Religous people scream at Darwin when he presented his evidence. Evidence that was physical and could be examined. While they screamed, they raise up their bible and say that it is all the proof they need. A book that is published by MANY different companies. A book that has various versons. Various translations. Yet is still a book. There is NO physical evidence to examine. Then to top it off, look at all of the different religions. The reason we have so many different religions is that when people didn't like what one was doing or saying, they made their own. My first challenge to religious people. Put your book down. Stop trying to convert everyone to your beliefs. Focus instead on your own life and lead a good one. If you believe you will be judged after you die, do you really think your God would be angry because, although you led a good life, you didn't worship him or tried to convert others? My second challenge to religious people. Try to respond to this without quoting the bible.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Get it

      John, I am not fighting the reliogious fight by any means. If you have faith that there is no God then that is your faith. But to throw Darwin in as your save all was kinda....uneducated. Yes he did have evidence, and in fact it was adiquit for the time. However, most of his work has been disputed by the very field he created. Don't get me wrong, he did start a great fire, but he is to evolution what Frued is to phsychology. A guy who came up with great stuff to work with but antiquated to say the least.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:31 am |
  8. MeMelvin

    There will always be those who doubt the histories of all religious faiths. All religious faiths contain myths, legends, fables, parables, mysteries and mysticism.

    Belief in the Divine has always been a part of human history be it Australian aborigines, African tribes, Indian Hindu tradition, Hawaiian volcanos and so on.

    Deniers of Jesus (and by deduction) also the would be deniers of other religious figures (Abraham, Buddha, Akea, Mawu-Lisa) are as dedicated to their belief system as any worshiper of the Divine...according to their "faith" only in the observable universe.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:12 am |
  9. christards


    April 10, 2012 at 10:09 am |
  10. JustPlainJoe

    Where you were born and upon which mother's knee you grew up, totally defines your comments to this discussion.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:09 am |
  11. James PDX

    I have to point out that Native Americans really got the screw job of all time from God. 1st, God decided that the only way to Heaven was through his son, Jesus Christ, but didn't think to tell the Native Americans on the other side of the planet this little change in plans. So for centuries they all went to Hell through no fault of their own. 2nd, God's children, the Christians, after being told by God that thou shalt not steal or kill, "discovered" the Americas and killed off the natives so that they could steal their land. Any who survived that onslaught were imprisoned on the worst land in the country and are now lucky if they get to open a casino to help make money to deal with the alcoholism the Christians gifted them with. Why does God hate them so much?

    April 10, 2012 at 10:08 am |
  12. louie1112

    I am hoping for the day when all these believers will not need their security blanket.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:08 am |
  13. john andrews

    SEEMS EVERYONE IS MISSING THE POINT HERE. I do not live the life like I should but if we all will read the Bible, then all the evidence is there. Chist Jesus is the Sole Savior of this world. He is The Son of God and He did live on this world and he is a Jew and God almighty. We need to accept this face, and try to live accordingly. ANYOTHER beliefe that Mahomad, Ali, and all that the Muslims believe are all only ANTI-CHRIST people and Demons and Terriorists and all will fry extra crispy in hell.

    I pray I can get myself back on the track following Jesus. Doesn't matter when we speak or what day as long it is the TRUTH about jesus.


    April 10, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • CosmicC

      If you want to get back on track start with judge not, lest you be judged.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      You keep saying "truth" and "evidence" in association with the bible. That is your biggest mistake.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:29 am |
  14. Rainer Braendlein

    Jesus from Nazareth/Palestine was real!

    Jesus was historical. It is proved by science of history!

    Scientifically seen, the accounts of the Bible of Jesus and the apostles are not as trustworthy as accounts from outside the Bible and the Church. The writers of the Bible were Christians and could have been tempted to invent stories about Jesus and the Church. However, there are accounts of Jesus and the Church from outside the Church, even drafted by enemies of Christ and the Church. Why should an enemy of Christ and the Church invent stories about Christ and the Church, which would promote the faith, which he hates. Hence, the texts below are very trustworthy, because they are drafted by enemies of Christ.

    Firstly, there was a very famous historian of the Roman Empire, which lived in the first century after Christ (AD 56 – AD 117), that means extremly near-term to the events, which had came to pass in Palestine. He, Tacitus, was a pagan, which had no reason at all to promote Christianity and to tell us lies about Jesus. We can be sure that it was historical, what he wrote about Jesus, because he was an enemy of Jesus:

    "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superst-ition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multi-tude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

    This passage is a clear evidence for the historicity of Christ Jesus.

    Secondly, there was a famous Jewish historian of the first century, who gives acount of Jesus Christ. Jews have no reason to promote Christianity and thus we can be sure that Flavius Josephus told us the truth about Jesus:

    "And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

    A Jew confirms the historical reality of Jesus, the founder of Christianity. That is very great!

    April 10, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • Horus

      Jesus the "founder of Christianity"? You really are oblivious to your religion's history; which began long before Jesus ever walked the earth. Christians were awaiting the arrival of "Christ", or "Kristos", meaning the annointed one, long before Jesus' day. Heard of John the Baptist? Try reading instead of repeating worn out material about Josephus, and Pliny.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Zach

      Jesus is not the founder of christianity. He was a Rabbi. He was Jewish as well. Paul is often credited with the founding of christianity.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • Dave

      You need a soapbox. Or maybe just a hobby.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • jon

      You do realize that your reference that was "close" chronologically was made 70 years after the death of someone who was the "Source" of Christianity.

      1) This was made after 70 years a story being passed from one person to another.

      2) Furthermore, he doesn't explicitly identify the person that was crucified, the "source" could easily be a "disciple" who "personally" experienced "Jesus" through a vision as suggested by the only writings that make reference to jesus that were written from AD 33-AD 80.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Em

      Horus – Christians did not exist before Christ. Therefore, they were not awaiting his coming. Peter the Apostle was the first Pope – he along with the other disciples spread the word of Christ after his death, which was the beginning of Christianity. The difference between Jews and Christians is that Jews do not believe that Jesus was the son of God – they are still waiting for his first coming. They were the people waiting for his coming, not Christians. I would not say that Jesus "founded" Christianity, but it certainly would not have started without him!

      April 10, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • Horus

      @Em – you couldn't be more wrong. Christians were known as such before Jesus' time. They were considered a cult offshoot of Judaism. They believed a savior was coming to take them away. He was referrred to as "Kristos" meaning "annointed one". This is historical fact. Read. Learn. Then comment.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  15. CosmicC

    I am an affirmative atheist. I go beyond lack of belief in a superior being to an affirmative belief that there is none. That said, I see no value in attacking someone else's beliefs on their holiest day.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:04 am |
  16. Rainer Braendlein

    Jesus Christ from Nazareth/Palestine was real!

    There are accounts of Jesus and Christianity outside the Bible and the Christian Church. Scientifically seen, accounts of Jesus and the faith from outside the Bible and the Church are more valueable, because Christian writers could always be tempted to invent stories about Jesus and the apostles, in order to promote the Christian faith.

    The text bellow is a conversation between two enemies of Christ and his Church. They had no reason at all to invent stories, which could promote the faith. Hence, the text below is extremly valueable, because enemies (Trajan and Pliny) of Christ tell of the Christian Church. The text below is a clear proof for the historicity of Christianity. Regard how close to Jesus' and the apostles lifetime the text emerged.

    Once, an officer, Pliny the Younger (reign 111-113 AD), of the Roman Empire had a conversation with his emperor Trajan (reign 98-117 AD):

    "It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

    Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

    Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous docu-ment was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

    They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive supersti-tion.

    I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both se-xes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this supersti-tion has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multi-tude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

    Emperor Trajan to Pliny

    You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspi-cion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."

    This passage is a clear evidence for historicity of Christianity. Consider it is from the beginning of the second century. Hence, Christianity could not be invented by any impostor later, but it was oviously a real thing.

    April 10, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Horus

      By ALL historical records "Nazareth" did not exist until the 3rd century CE (after Jesus allegedly lived). In fact the area today is questioned by most academic theologians. Even so, the booming metropolis of Nazareth had a single well capable of supporting roughly five families – not exactly enough for an entire village.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • CosmicC

      All this dialog proves is that there were Christians two generations after Jesus was supposed to have lived. That does not speak to whether Jesus was an individual, a combination of several real people, or completely made up.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:11 am |
  17. Horus

    Well of course they ran something relevant on "Easter". The Christian population would have us believe that on such a day a man (and I mean man) "rose from the dead". Why not talk about it during the event? Afraid more might see the real truth? It's like pointing out at Christmas that the celebration actually originates from the winter solstice celebrations, and that even accounts in the Bible suggest a spring birth, not dead of winter. In fact the winter solstice is also where the "dead for 3 days, then rises again" comes from. The ancients believed that the Sun died for several days around the solstice (because it hung low in the horizon), then it began to rise again. They celebrated the rebirth of the son/sun (Ra, Horus, Jesus the list of sun-gods is endless). All religions throughout history were conceived by man, most during a time absent modern understanding and simply building upon earlier myths. The world would be better off if everyone recognized religions for what they are (social clubs for the like-minded)

    April 10, 2012 at 10:00 am |
    • Em

      It is an issue of respect. There was no reason to run the article on Easter Sunday. The point could be debated any other day of the year, and people would have the same arguments for or against religion/Christianity/the existence of Jesus. They did it purely to antagonize people, not because it was "relevant" on that day. It could be a relevant topic on any day.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Aaron

      I actually wrote my Master's Thesis on the similarities between the Roman Sun-God "Mythras" and Jesus. Before converting to Christianity, the Roman Emporer, Constantine, worshiped Mythras. After his conversion, however, he dropped Mythras and devoted himself to Christ. He attributed many of Mythras' qualities to Jesus in his public orations, on his coins (Jesus as a Sun God), and in his policies. My conclusion is that Constantine was largely responsible for making Jesus seem more "Pagan" than he was historically, but his efforts made Jesus more acceptable to Roman citizens. Mythras' birthday, by-the-way, was on December 25th and some of the the other similarities were because of Constantine. My own feeling, as a Christian, is that there was a historical Jesus who did exist. I just don't see that many devoted followers in the decades following Christ, enduring persecution and suffering through torture and death for something they were not totally convinced actually happened. Certainly there were numerous eye-witnesses that we don't know about, that passed on their personal accounts to believers. Why the devoted search for relics, the tomb, his birth place.. etc...if they thought it was a myth ? All evidence that I see points to the fact that Jesus did exist - but that he was was in some ways later meshed in to Paganism by those trying to make him more tolerable to the Roman Pagans.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • craig

      Please read the book of Acts. first called christians in Antioch.

      April 10, 2012 at 11:00 am |
  18. MyTake

    Thought provoking ... but since it is a non-standard idea not as interesting as it could be.

    April 10, 2012 at 9:56 am |
  19. Daniel B

    Jesus is a metaphor for the sun.....nothing more, nothing less. All those pictures with a yellow disk around his head, just like Horus, the Egyptian Sun

    April 10, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Suppo

      Daniel is a Biblical name. 😛

      April 10, 2012 at 10:11 am |
  20. nookster

    You religious cultist should go to sites where everyone agrees with you and makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Why waste your time here. Its obvious there are many heathens on this site who believe you are programmed members of cults. That you were taught this nonsense from birth and don't have the mental capacity to think your way out of it. That you are so programmed that you indoctrinate your own children to live a life of fear, guilt and ignorance. Your not going to save anyone here so just go anyway and quit whinning.

    April 10, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • Truth7

      The only ones who live in fear, guilt and ignorance are those God has blinded from the Truth.

      April 10, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Nat

      nookster. If anyone's whining it's you. what i don't get is how atheists seem to have no idea whatsoever about what the bible says, yet u make such judgements based on your ignorance.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Suppo

      I try my best to follow the teachings of Christ, as does my family. I feel completely loved and am completely content. I honestly wish you could feel what I'm feeling for just one day.

      You say that Bible is a mere tool for control? No. I've never been more free. Try reading it sometime. Start with the New Testament.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • James PDX

      Suppo, why should people start with the New Testament? IS it because the original version of Christianity is filled with contradiction and evil? Remember, the Old Testament was not invalidated by the new covenant with Jesus. The rules still stand. So you have to understand the Old Testament and all of its hypocrisy before you delve into the new and much more palatable to the masses reboot.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      "what i don't get is how atheists seem to have no idea whatsoever about what the bible says, yet u make such judgements based on your ignorance."

      You couldn't be more wrong Nat!! Most Atheists know the buybull better than christards do!! You people make judgements all the time based on your own ignorance of the world. You're satisfied that the buybull provides the answers to your questions when all it really does is stop you from seeking the truth...christianity is full of fear mongering and control.

      April 10, 2012 at 10:33 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
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.