June 22nd, 2012
11:27 AM ET

Prominent atheist blogger converts to Catholicism

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – She went from atheist to Catholic in just over 1,000 words.

Leah Libresco, who’d been a prominent atheist blogger for the religion website Patheos, announced on her blog this week that after years of debating many “smart Christians,” she has decided to become one herself, and that she has begun the process of converting to Catholicism.

Libresco, who had long blogged under the banner “Unequally Yoked: A geeky atheist picks fights with her Catholic boyfriend,” said that at the heart of her decision were questions of morality and how one finds a moral compass.

“I had one thing that I was most certain of, which is that morality is something we have a duty to,” Libresco told CNN in an interview this week, a small cross dangling from her neck. “And it is external from us. And when push came to shove, that is the belief I wouldn’t let go of. And that is something I can’t prove.”

CNN's Belief Blog: the faith angles behind the big stories

According to a Patheos post she wrote on Monday, entitled “This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal,” she began to see parts of Christianity and Catholicism that fit her moral system. Though she now identifies as a Catholic, Libresco questions certain aspects of Catholicism, including the church’s positions on homosexuality, contraception and some aspects of religious liberty.

“There was one religion that seemed like the most promising way to reach back to that living Truth,” Libresco wrote about Catholicism in her conversion announcement post, which has been shared over 18,000 times on Facebook. “I asked my friend what he suggests we do now, and we prayed the night office of the Liturgy of the Hours together.”

At the end of the post, Libresco announces that she is in a Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults class and is preparing for baptism. She will continue to blog for Patheos, but under the banner, “A geeky convert picks fights in good faith.”

According to Dan Welch, director of marketing for Patheos, Libresco’s post has received around 150,000 page views so far.

“Leah's blog has gotten steadily more popular since she arrived at Patheos, but a typical post on her blog is probably closer to the range of 5,000 page views,” Welch wrote in an email. “Even now, a few days later, her blog is probably getting 20-30 times its normal traffic.”

Libresco’s announcement has left some atheists scratching their heads.

“I think atheists were surprised that she went with Catholicism, which seems like a very specific choice,” Hemant Mehta, an atheist blogger at Patheos, told CNN. “I have a hard time believing how someone could jump from I don’t believe in God to a very specific church and a very specific God.”

Mehta says that Libresco’s conversion is a “one-off thing” and not something that signals any trend in atheism. “The trends are very clear, the conversions from Catholicism to atheism are much more likely to happen than the other way around,” he said.

But while atheists were puzzled by the conversion, others commended Libresco.

“I know I’ve prayed for her conversion several times, always thinking she would make a great Catholic,” wrote Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger. “And with this news, it looks like that will happen. Today heaven is roaring with joy.”

Thomas L. McDonald, a Catholic Patheos blogger, welcomed Libresco to the fold: “Welcome. I know this was hard, and will continue to be so. Don’t worry if the Catholics make it as for difficult for you as the atheists. We only do it to people we love.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Libresco says one of the most common questions she has received is how she'll deal with atheists now.

“The great thing about a lot of the atheist and skeptic community is that people talk more critically about ideas and want to see proof provided,” Libresco said. “That kind of analytical thinking is completely useful and the Catholic Church doesn’t need to and should not be afraid of because if you’ve got the facts on your side, you hope they win.”

Libresco is just switching the side she thinks the facts are on.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Catholic Church

soundoff (7,475 Responses)
  1. Star Performer

    What mistakes are necessary before your many opponents slip one past you?
    What mistakes are necessary before your many opponents slip many past you?
    Are you in the habit of making mistakes?
    Are you in the habit of being SUCCESSFUL?
    If you never put a foot wrong, then you will slip many past your many opponents!

    June 23, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • The Corrector

      God! You are AWESOME Star Performer! Amen!

      June 23, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • atheist@heart

      This is definitely the Second Coming! I smell it!

      June 23, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • Star Performer

      Perhaps there's hope for you after all atheist@heart!

      June 23, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
    • Bet

      The Corrector = Star Performer

      June 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
  2. CathyT

    Why does CNN's U.S. home page say that the blogger is converting to Christianity? typo much?

    June 23, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
  3. The Bird Is The Word

    Maybe she converted when she realized that Heaven is a nudist colony:

    According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created in God's image. They were created naked. Therefore, God was naked. Adam and Eve weren't aware of their nakedness until they sinned & became ashamed of their nakedness. Their shame drove them to clothe themselves. Now, because God didn't sin – indeed, cannot sin, God had no reason to be ashamed of his nakedness and clothe himself.

    Having established that God was, is, and will always be naked (The eternal God, you know), let's carry this a bit
    further. For one to get to heaven, one must be washed clean of sin. Without sin, there is no shame. Without shame, one wears no clothes.

    Imagine the Horrors Of Heaven! EVERYBODY NAKED! Naked old women! Naked old men! Naked GOD! I can't stand it!


    June 23, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Peteyroo

      Reason enough to request hell. Mother Teresa and Julia Child romping through heaven unclothed? No, no, no. Definitely hell for this unrepentant scoundrel and atheist. That's where all the interesting people are or will be. I want a spot next to the ice machine. The best part of hell will be that the Christians folks posting here won't be there. They'll be in heaven naked, playing hide the salami with Torquemada, pedophile priests, and others too numerous to mention. Unfortunately, there is no hell and no heaven. There is only the cold, cold ground. Make the best of life on earth. Be good for goodness' sake.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      You over-emphasize a physical, historical incident, and you are wrong to assign it eternal implications...

      Our clothes are not a part of us. "Our image" is us... who we are... not the clothes we wear.

      God "created us in His image" in the sense that we are triune beings (spirit, soul, body), as He is a triune being (Father, Son, Holy Ghost).

      God "created us in His image" in the sense that we have faith, and can create "something from nothing".

      God "created us in His image" in the sense that we have hands as He does. We have feet as He does. We have eyes, ears, mouth, etc.

      God "created us in His image" in the sense that we have free will.

      And so on and so forth...

      June 23, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Cq

      A more basic question is why would God care if he were naked or not? Being a unique being, without a "female" god to procreate with, why would God have any genitalia in which to cover up? Makes one wonder why God would even be referred to as a male. Did people just end up imagining God as a "he" because of his often violent behavior, or because those men just couldn't imagine having to answer to a female?

      June 23, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Peteyroo

      It has just been pointed out to me that though there will be plenty of ice machines in hell, none of them will work! Crap!

      June 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      The question of 'what is a Christian?' comes up regularly on these boards. Christianity has become so big and global that it's referred to as a 'civilization' by Ethnographers. So is Islam btw.
      Therefore it isnt necessarily a mistake in the eyes of some to refer to certain people as "Christian", eg Hitler.
      However, a person can be a 'heretic', which means they are classified as "not a Christian" by certain bodies of Christians.
      Ms Libresco can no longer be called an atheist, because she made a public declaration as a Christian.
      Anyone know if Hitler ever made a statement that he was something "not a Christian"?
      Btw, the Christian view of Hitler is that he was a forerunner (Biblical 'type') of Anti-Christ.
      The final Anti-Christ who's to come will probably do a lot of the same stuff Hitler did.
      Hitler wasn't the first anti-Christ btw.....

      June 23, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • TheCapitalist


      The question of "who is a Christian" is much bigger than you think. Even Jesus said that many people who thought they were Christian, and who represented themselves as Christian, would not be allowed into the kingdom of heaven.

      There is also another aspect, whereby non-Christians pretend to be Christian so as to distort Christianity. I mean c'mon! Look at these atheists latching onto "Hitler's christianity", when they know perfectly well that no Christian would refer to Hitler as "good Christian". It is a tool of the enemy.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • The Bird Is The Word

      @The Capitalist: Who made you THE authority on the bible? You have no more right to interpret the Bible than I do. You are NOT special.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • The Bird Is The Word

      @Peteyroo: Don't discount Mother Teresa's desirability so easily. I've always liked older women with a fetish.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      2 Peter 1:20... "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

      Truth is truth... and as long as I speak truth... I can speak authoritatively...

      June 23, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • JWT

      Don;t worry Peteyroo – just think of all those scenarios that involve hell freezing over.

      June 23, 2012 at 9:58 pm |
  4. sasss31

    lol what a joke. Her atheism must have never been based on reason and rationality but rather from something she went through her childhood to "hate god". There are some so-called atheists like that. If you're atheism is not based out of reason then you are susceptible to some nonsense such as this.

    June 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • theBigE

      Read her blog. Totally the opposite – grew up in a non-faith upbringing, never confronted with the logical arguments of belief.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
    • seebs

      You know that really annoying thing some Christians do, where when someone leaves they say "ha ha you were never really one of us"?

      It is not any cooler or more persuasive when you do it.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • sasss31

      Her atheism was obviously never based on reason. The fact is that the more educated a society and a people are, the more they continue to give up religion. And that is the case today with record numbers leaving irrationality and faith. This trend will continue as long as emphasis is placed on science and math education. We already see this true in Europe in which their science and math education along with a society valuing science has created unprecedented numbers of believers. Examples: U.K. 25% atheist. Denmark majority atheist. Other European countries are high up there. Even Israel has an estimated 15-30% atheists. We are catching up.... slowly, but surely.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Peteyroo


      There are no logical arguments for belief that I can see. Please inform me of your logfic, please.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • sasss31

      And she obviously had an "empty" or "void" part of her life that she needed filled. Good for her. This is why we live in America. Freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. We are all to believe what we wish. This is her prerogative.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • sasss31

      One last thing: faith has zero logic to it. Faith by definition is a suspension of reason and rationality. There is absolutely no logic and evidence to believe in anything to do with any kind of faith or religion. Most religious people agree with this sentiment and hence, call it "faith".

      June 23, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • sasss31

      Typo in a previous post of mine: "We already see this true in Europe in which their science and math education along with a society valuing science has created unprecedented numbers of non-believers* "

      June 23, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      You've been brainwashed into thinking that a denial of God equates to "evolution". It's been done before. The modern-day "New Age movement" that asserts that "there is no God... we are god", is simply a re-hashing of many old pagan religions. As another example, the ancient worship of "mother earth" is linked to modern-day environmentalism. There is nothing new under the sun.

      Furthermore, all kinds of harm and destruction have been caused by godlessness, making any "harm done by religion" pale in comparison. Hitler based his policies on "eugenics" and science and evolution, which led him to his attempts to "build a better man". Mao in China has killed MILLIONS as he's purged China of Christians and churches and has made it essentially illegal to be Christian. Stalinism, Castro's Cuba, Kim's North Korea... all of these are godless societies not only influenced by atheism, but governmentally coerced into atheism.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • theBigE

      @Peteyroo – I just checked out her blog, I believe it was the argument of moral objectivity that was foremost in her mind (why are some actions considered "cruel" or "unjust" – are these just humans standards, or is there some outside standard?)

      Also – the fact that she met brilliant math and science majors at college that had logical, rational reasons for faith was intriguing to her.

      For some logical arguments, I suggest: http://christianthinktank.com/
      and also http://givemeananswer.org/

      June 23, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
    • TheCapitalist


      You use faith everyday, and there is plenty of logic to it. Faith is the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen". If you have ever achieved a goal, you did so through faith, and logic was a part of it. In the same way that a "logical" and "rational" exercise and diet routine, might lead you to have more faith in your ability to get in shape.

      The idea and concept of faith has been distorted and misrepresented to you by those who would deceive you and turn you away from the truth. Hear out BOTH sides before you come to a conclusion.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • sasss31

      TheCapitalist: Communism in and of itself was a blind ideology and that further confirms my statements. Communism was not a path of atheism based on reason and rationality but rather from an ideology that took its teachings from religious totalitarianism. I urge you to learn more about Stalin's tactics a bit deeper and further. And Hitler was an avowed follower of Christ and considered himself a Christian – not an atheist. The only atheism that is not prone to such nonsense such as ideologies is one that most scientists adhere to: one based on science and investigation. Hence, reason and rationality. Nice try though. 🙂

      June 23, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Chad

      atheism is the defining aspect of Marxist-Lennist philosophy.
      “Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism.” -Lennin
      “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.” – Marx

      June 23, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      Communism is closely linked with atheism. Marx himself said that a society had to replace God with government, and that getting rid of traditional notions of God was essential to this.

      Hitler was not “an avowed follower of Christ”, no matter what he “said”. Jesus said “you will know them by their fruits”, and we pay attention to what Hitler did, not what he said or claimed. He ACTED UPON his SCIENCE-BASED tendencies of “reason” and “logic”. He did not act upon his so-called “christianity”. Darwin told him that blacks and Jews were less evolved, and he acted upon it.

      All atheism is prone to all kinds of nonsense because it denies the truth, and glorifies mankind and self. It is not evolved… it is delusion and a lie.

      Your “nice try” comment is simply an attempt to deflect away from the substance of this argument, in trying to denigrate me as irrelevant… when in fact, all it does is reflect that you are trying to “get me to go away” because you have no substantive argument left to make.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • sasss31

      "Darwin told him that blacks and Jews were less evolved, and he acted upon it. "

      Darwin said NO SUCH THING. You're an obvious dolt if you think Darwinism said such a thing.

      And I'm sorry, but Hitler was a Christian. You can't change this fact. And BTW, the Catholic Church celebrated the Fuhrer's birthday each and every year. The Catholic Church was heavily tied to the Nazis – and on the belt of every soldier there was a cross and in the oath of loyalty god was invoked right next to the Fuhrer.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • b4bigbang

      @sasss31: When you refer to atheists that don't fit your ideal and then refer to them as "so-called" atheists, you run dangerously close to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.....

      June 23, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • sasss31

      And yes, communists are atheists but the VAST MAJORITY of atheists are not communists. Communists can be atheists such as KKK can be Christian. Does this mean that Christianity is inherently tied to the KKK??

      June 23, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • Johnny Blammo

      And Chad, if you actually understood what you were quoting, you would realize that they prove clearly that Communism was not born of atheism, but simply took it as a tool to combat one of many rivals – because that was what communism did. It was so obseesed with any and all rivals that Stalin lost the Spanish Civil War because his faction was so busy wiping out other socialist (POUM, etc) and anarchist (FAI/CNT, Durruti Column) factions that they gave away the war to the real enemy (who was totally supported by the Church, by the way. They love a dictator).

      Appropriated as a tool against one of many enemies. Because Communism wanted total control. Not the creative force, not the impetus for Communism and its atrocities, but a stance against a rival. That has nothing to do at all with atheism that existed before, after, and in other places during that era.

      But you already know this . . . and still you perpetuate your lie. I have told you this many times, and you lie and lie and lie again.

      Why are Christians such liars? Why do you and Capitalist lie right and left? Lie after lie after lie.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      Now you're just being disingenuous... Darwin did write about the "lesser evolved" nature of black people. Maybe you need to go back and do some research...

      Once again... I know this concept may be hard for you to understand, but just because someone refers to himself as "christian", does not mean that he is actually a TRUE Christian, nor does it mean that he's going to heaven. "For Satan himself is transformed as an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be disguised as the ministers of righteousness." It is beyond debate that Hitler's "building a better man" policy was based on eugenics, science, and Darwin's theory of evolution. Whatever decals he had his soldiers wear on his belt is IRRELEVANT. The fact that he wanted the Catholic church to worship him and have a holiday after him is reflective of MY POINT that he is motivated by a god-complex, and not any kind of "christianity". The Nazi's of Hitler's day derided their opponents as not being logical and rational and of being opposed to science... just like you are now...

      June 23, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • Roger Ramjet

      Adolf Hitler paid his church taxes right up to the end of his life.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      KKK IS NOT Christian... it is a distortion of Christianity that serves to turn people away from Christianity.

      Johnny Blammo...
      The one lying here is you, whether you know it or not. Atheism is much more than a "tool" of communism, it is an important, integral component of it.

      I am not claiming that atheists approve of communist atrocities, but atheism DOES result in them, whatever your intentions.

      And it is important to make this distinction, because atheists are very quick to point out "religious atrocities", while ignoring the far more numerable science-based and atheist/godless-based atrocities, which are far greater in scope and terror.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • Chad

      @Johnny Blammo "And Chad, if you actually understood what you were quoting, you would realize that they prove clearly that Communism was not born of atheism, but simply took it as a tool to combat one of many rivals – because that was what communism did."

      =>I see that lie a lot.. that communism wasnt really atheist, it just used atheism to suppress religion because religion was insurrectionist..

      The truth however is exactly the opposite. Religion was seen as an opiate (keeping people stupid and senseless), not a source of opposition. Atheism was seen as freedom for people, and IS the defining central tenant of Marxism-Lenninism.
      Your better off facing reality.

      Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man

      There has never been a country with an official policy of state-sponsored atheism that wasn’t a brutal regime..

      June 23, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • sasss31

      "which are far greater in scope and terror."

      Religious tyranny and oppression has been the #1 cause of human oppression and terror for thousands of years. And it continues to this day. Planes were flown into the Twin Towers on 9/11 because of religious irrationality. Please grow up and don't make things up about Darwin. Darwin did not say that black people were less evolved. All he said was that races "evolved differently" but not that one race was less evolved.

      June 23, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
    • Chad

      @sasss31 "Religious tyranny and oppression has been the #1 cause of human oppression and terror for thousands of years. "

      =>another piece of nonsense that I see so much.. the reality is far different however. Only 7% of of all wars have been determined to have a religious basis.

      In their Encyclopedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They document 1763 wars overall, of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict
      – Axelrod, Alan & Phillips, Charles Encyclopedia of Wars, Facts on File, November 2004

      June 23, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • sasss31

      And as atheists we don't advocate state-sponsored atheism. We advocate separation of religion and government; as well as freedom of religion. That is the essence of American liberty thanks to the likes of the great Thomas Jefferson and the great Thomas Paine. 🙂 I have to go now, good day 🙂

      June 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • vulpecula

      Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in the supernatural. So when your talking about Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. it wasn't their atheism that made them do the evil things they did any more than say their lack in the belief in unicorns. It was their Political and moral ideaologes that made them do it. Atheism is not an ideology. You can't pin those crimes on a lack in belief in god, because a belief in a god hasn't stopped people from doing horrible things. Atheism is not an agenda, though atheists, like christians might have other agendas.

      June 23, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • Mirror Mirror

      Hitler was NOT an atheist. That is just another Christian lie. Atheist organizations and secular schools were shut down inmmediately after he got power in 1933, under Hitler's direct orders.

      Total lie that Hitler was an atheist. Expect lies from people who also say the KKK was not Christian.

      June 23, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
    • billdeacons

      Nice work Cap and Chad. Bravo

      June 23, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • DearbornGuy

      sasss31 – Could you be any more condescending? She must not have been atheist? But you celebrate like-minded folks who elvolve from religion to your thinking... I'm sorry... "reason." But someoine who "evolve" into belief must just have never been "true believers" in your "religion?" And, as for communisim, athetism is everything because faith in anything but the government is dangerous... as we saw in Poland when they let that darn Pope John Paul into the country to stir up the believers. Why else would the KGB try to kill him? That's not saying every atheist is communist, but every communist government is dedicated to atheism.

      June 24, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Noa

      She must have realized that reason based on a set of theories, i.e, evolving and or presumed realities, was empty and unable to offer moral foundation for real life. The Bible speaks authoritatively to the moral issues we face a human beings. It is not designed like a blog or debate space on a public forum where topics originate and are debated on the bloggers terms. The Bible for example pointʻs out how prone the people of God are to misrepresent, misappropriate his instruction in the area of relationships. Howe are fathers to raise their Children , what are the duties of Magistrates, and how do faith communities apply Gods instruction along these lines? Bloggers can live in cyber space all they want but they must at some point contact the real worlds at which point their atheism will have absolutely no value. The Bible gives us a picture of what real faith looks like as well as what real idiocy looks like. It gives us a picture of what God expects thus allowing the people of faith to adjust themselves to these realities. This is called sanctification because the process is designed to purge away all non-biblical thinking and action. This was salvation to a people who had dreamed of a homeland where they could fully realize all the blessings God had planned for them. The task we have been called to as Gods ambassadors is to point the way for all the nations to follow! There will always be those who cannot and will not conform to the Sovereigns demands! Such will do all they can to undo the chains God has put on their necks! Heres the rub. Such chains are not visible to the natural eye!! And humanistic reason cannot make them go away! Hell is separation from God and nothing man can reason will change this reality. Atheist can call Christians every name in the book, but that will not change their plight with GOD! Christians are constrained to work and reason within these realities. We dare not reinvent a new set of realties as do the atheist to their everlasting shame. Leah will find peace in faith because God ordains this for those who seek his ways on his terms!

      July 3, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
  5. NativeBornUSA

    Ting your argument is pretty silly........

    June 23, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Peteyroo


      June 23, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
  6. Mary

    my condolences to her...wrong choice...not the narrow road that Jesus requires for salvation.

    June 23, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
  7. NativeBornUSA

    Good for her! Congrats you finally saw both the light of truth and common sense........

    June 23, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • Sue

      What "common sense"?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Peteyroo

      NakedBorn, that is completely false.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
  8. SeeThis


    Being sceptic?

    It could have been you!

    June 23, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Cq

      Why would you doubt that an oxygen-deprived brain would hallucinate? Even extreme dehydration and lack of food can cause hallucinations, which is why shaman go on "vision quests" like Moses did on the mountain top and Jesus did in the desert. They didn't "see" God or Satan on a full stomach, did they?

      June 23, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      Many similar experiences are literally happening "after death", and have scientists baffled, since there is no brain activity that could possibly lead to a hallucination.

      Not to mention the reports of some having seen things that could only be seen by a "soul floating up out of the body"... such as near-death victims identifying items on hospital rooftops where their physical bodies had never been...

      June 23, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Cq

      If it were after death, and the brain has died, the only time when there could be "o brain activity", then those people would be dead, and they wouldn't be around today telling you what they experienced, right? They were near death, and there is nothing in this that "baffles" scientists. Any number of drugs can affect the brain into thinking that you are "floating up out of the body".

      What accounts of actually seeing things that you could not have were ever confirmed?

      June 23, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      You have not researched this issue. Yes it does "baffle" scientists... they literally die and come back to life. They are dead, for whatever period of time... you know... like when your heart stops and they have to resuscitate you? Many of these visions and experiences have occurred during time-periods where they are, quite literally, dead with no brain activity. THAT is what "has scientists 'baffled'", as I said... and not just Christian scientists, mind you. Atheist scientists are sitting there going, "this makes no sense".

      Hear out both sides with an open mind... not just the one...

      June 23, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • 1word

      Awesome! God is amazing, I feel so good that I gave my life to Christ. I am on the right path to everlasting PEACE, I Pray the nonbelievers come around before it's too late.

      June 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • Cq

      If they really were dead they'd still be dead. They were nearly dead, but nobody comes back from complete death. If my heart stops I'm not dead, ... yet. I'm dead when they can't bring me back, when the brain is too far gone. Why is this not an acceptable definition for you? People aren't really dead until they are permanently dead, and no one who is permanently dead has ever been proven to give their opinion on anything that has happened to them since they died.

      There are, however, some things that we can honestly say that we do not yet understand, but why would these things have to indicate God's existence? Why not any of the other couple thousand gods or goddesses being responsible, or magicians, or fairies, UFO aliens, people from Atlantis, Superman, or any of hundreds of similar possibilities? Sure, any of them could be the real cause, but so could something natural that we just don't happen to understand yet, just as we didn't understand many things a hundred years ago that did turn out to have natural causes that we do understand now. Natural causes have always turned out to be the correct answer before, so why would it be irrational to expect natural causes now?

      Maybe science will never find the answer, but that's OK too. Isn't it better to admit not knowing the answer to something than just going with the most popular speculation just to have an answer, regardless of it's actually being the correct one?

      June 24, 2012 at 12:45 am |
  9. TheCapitalist

    See our thread on pg. 63 where I address the lie that you've been fed, that states that Christians believe in a 6,000-year old earth. As a Christian, I believe that the earth is millions of years old, and I support that belief with the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is 6,000 years old.

    June 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Chuckles

      It's actually billions of years old, but nice try again, I see that you really need people to validate you. Pretty sad really, but hey like I said before, if I could keep you in a little cage or something you would be a perfect exhibit of mental illness masquerading as sane.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • oh look--it's herbie the brainless marvel!

      he just cant stop!

      June 23, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      LOL... "nice try... billions instead of millions"... LOL... latching on to the smallest sliver of a nuance that you can to eke out SOMETHING, ANYTHING you can say you're "right" about. Buy the way... you erroneously ommitted a semi-colon.

      LOL... more insults... like an un-evolved ape flinging its feces...

      atheist follow-up: "actually, apes dont fling feces... haha, gotcha!"

      June 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Im confused, are you saying that there is only a little difference between a million and a billion?

      Please add math to the course listings I laid out for you please.


      June 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      I'm saying that your nitpicking over-emphasis on technicalities and semantics belies your lack of a substantive argument... as does your penchant for launching immature insults...

      June 23, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Please tell me how the difference between a million and a billion is "nitpicking" and "semantics"? Really, tell me how as I see the two numbers are incredibly different.

      You can always admit to being wrong or you can defend your stance that the earth is somehow only a million years, instead you took the third option of getting huffy when I pointed out your mistake. That's on you pal.

      June 24, 2012 at 12:38 am |
  10. TheCapitalist

    Your entire diatribe proves my satirical and sarcastic point that I made earlier... "because a dog's coat gets thicker in the winter, therefore we came from a one-celled amoeba".

    June 23, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
  11. The Corrector

    Since the gods are definitely smiling on Germany, I'm sure my next wife will be German!
    Are the gods smiling on you lot yet?

    June 23, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
  12. Ronald Padro

    Wellcome to the Cristian Fam. there may be more than one Rd. to see the Lord but only one Jesus and in his word he says I am the light come follow me.

    June 23, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • Peteyroo

      Welcome to the Christian farm indeed. There is more than one road to see the Lord. LSD is one. Can you name the others? And about this Jesus character. I have photos of him riding unicorns along the Sea of Galilee (before he ended up of all places–the Dead Sea) and playing poker with leprechauns.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
  13. Colin

    Ok Capitalist and my other friends who think the World began 4,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a dancing bear – Oh, I'm sorry, I meant 6,000 years ago with one man, one woman and a talking snake – here is a little lesson in one way evolution works. I originally put this together for some Middle school children, but don't worry, I dumbed it down so you could follow.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species. Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species, Canis lupis familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same sub-species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? Same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but virtually none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore received more food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    The tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and had less adrenaline that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – from Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all began to use dogs. Then something else happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s, with the current 600 or so breeds of dogs all descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    Most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Only some few still can. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate sub-species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf. If this last sentence sounds familiar, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable, living in every suburb, licking our face, fetching our sticks and messing on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, understood, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of evolution of one sub-species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the market if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two episodes of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less) and the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Capitalist, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead Jew, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin” Amen!

    June 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • 1word

      I don't get involved in disputing how long the earth was here, but I do believe the word of God. I do believe he sent his son Jesus to die for my sins, I believe after giving my life to Christ I was changed into being like Christ. I live by Faith, you sit there and count the stars.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • JWT

      I am glad you believe – now just remember that not everyone believes or nat least don't believe in exactly what you do. There is no evidence that one viewpoint is philosophically better than any other.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • The Corrector

      Nobody said evolution works.
      You got that bit wrong.
      You got the rest of it wrong too.
      What does this make you?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • theBigE

      Um – so you're saying that the evolution of dogs involved human interaction, correct? Conscience decisions were made by an intelligent outside force to affect the evolution of dogs into what they are today. I was taught that evolution does not involve any intelligent outside force, just random chance and survival of the fittest. So which is it? Intelligent outside force or random chance? Your argument is making a case for intelligent design.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • thewiz_71

      There is nothing in the theory of evolution, nor in astronomy, or in geology, nor in paleontology, or any other branch of the sciences which contradicts Christianity, or any other type of theism (except Mormonism – we know scientifically that the Indian peoples of the Americas are not descended from the Jews – which is a key point of belief for them, much more central than there having been a literal Garden of Eden is for classical Christianity or Judaism). The point is that science and religion have two entirely different purposes. BTW – I know very few people who subscribe to the catholic tradition of Christianity that you so snarkily describe at the end of your comments who are creationists and who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
    • 1word

      No other religion is as bold as Christianity. I read the Karan and they talk about being one with God but being one with God is actually giving your life to Christ. This is why Jesus said he is the door. You can be a Muslim and accept Christ but that means you have to leave your Muslim faith for the Truth!

      June 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • michigan

      so if thats the case what created the first male and female wolves?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • Cq

      By "faith" don't you mean that there is no evidence possible that would convince you that you are wrong in believing God exists? Would you call that being "rational"?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      There is more evidence to support Christianity then there is for any other system of belief out there.

      Are you considering the evidence that goes in the other direction? Are you being “rational”? What would convince you that your disbelief of God is wrong?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Cq

      Is there any "evidence" going the other way that isn't completely subjective? Subjective evidence usually isn't very compelling to others, which is probably why you never hear a prosecutor as a police detective if he feels that the defendant is guilty.

      If God wants me to believe in him then he would know what would convince me, right? I don't really have enough imagination to think of what that would look like, but I'm completely open to the idea that I could be convinced. The question remains, however, whether or not you could be convinced that God doesn't exist?

      June 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      Yes, there is much evidence that is NOT "completely subjective"... the fact that you believe it all to be subjective reflects that you have not considered them with an open mind.

      For example, take the HUNDREDS of prophecies that have been literally and exactly fulfilled by the Bible. Non-Christians have told you that they have been "de-bunked" or whatever, and you believed them... because it fit your pre-conceived narrative. You did not listen with an open-mind, to the Christian who gave the rebuttal to the non-Christian's false description... because "why bother, he's a stupid believer in fairy tales anyway. The first guy told me so." Yet "he who is first in his cause seems right, until his adversary comes and searches him."

      You have been fed a false point of view from people who are biased for a particular side.

      Isn't it rational, and logical, and intelligent... to hear both sides and THEN make your conclusion?

      June 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • Cq

      Homer writes of the prophecies of ancient Greek Oracles coming true, but is this evidence that they did? Is it not possible that the Bible prophecies were actually written after the events they supposedly predict occurred? If not, why?

      I did not just take other people's evaluations on face value. I have looked into these things for myself and I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the Bible that cannot be explained without there needing to be a God. I don't expect you to believe me, but you may end up at this same conclusion if you do a little reading of other mythologies and compare them with Bible stories.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @Cq " I have looked into these things for myself and I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the Bible that cannot be explained without there needing to be a God."

      @Chad "hmm.. except for:
      1. The origin of the universe
      2. The fine tuning of the universe for the building blocks of life
      3. The origin of life on earth
      4. Punctuated Equilibrium: the fossil record showing species experiencing millions, 100's of millions of years of stasis (no change, random genetic mutations are weeded out of the gene pool resulting in a pool 'wobbling about the genetic mean'), followed by extremely rapid change resulting in new species appearing fully formed in the fossil record.
      5. The empty tomb, and the unshakable conviction among followers and enemies alike that they had witnesses a resurrected Jesus. A conviction they held so strongly that they went to their deaths proclaiming its truth.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • JWT

      @Cap – that is not saying anything at all.

      I'll stick with no god and be on the safe side.

      June 23, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • Cq

      Not this same list again! Again, why do you assume that anything on your list is only explainable through God? Especially #5. Do you believe everything that you read in ancient books?

      June 24, 2012 at 12:16 am |
    • Chad

      @Cq "Not this same list again! Again, why do you assume that anything on your list is only explainable through God?
      @Chad "um... because we know enough about those things at this point to know that they cant be explained with out appealing to some force outside our time/space universe?
      God is claiming responsibility.

      @Cq "Especially #5. Do you believe everything that you read in ancient books?"
      @Chad "I believe credible ancient books, books that have withstood withering scrutiny for 2000 years and have yet to be demonstrated false in any way..

      Do you think that anything that occurred prior to 1900 is unknowable by definition?

      June 24, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • Cq

      Why do you find the Bible more credible than other ancient books? Perhaps Homer was as truthful and the Greek gods are still out there, like on the Star Trek episode?

      1900s, no. We have too many sources for the 1900's material to not be credible, but that doesn't mean that historians don't debate the events like nobody's business. People have debated what really happened when JFK was killed. Eyewitnesses in trials today are being questioned, so I don't see how you can say that something written 2000 years ago, for a religious purpose, is historically accurate.

      June 25, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Noa

      Kudoʻs to the poor souls who read through all of Colinʻs post. I could not!

      July 3, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
  14. The Corrector

    We could always put you through the WITNESS SECURITY PROGRAM.
    See what wonderful things the Witness Security Program(http://www.usmarshals.gov/witsec/index.html) can do for honest people.

    June 23, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
  15. Jesus was a Mongoloid Idiot!!!!!!!!

    You stupid stupid azzholes!!!!!!!!!!

    June 23, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • The Corrector

      What does that make you?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Trolling should never be this obvious – or boring.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
    • michigan

      your cool your internet gang banging on us. lmao go get a life.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
  16. 1word


    June 23, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
  17. 1word

    Matthew 10
    34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

    35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

    36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

    God's word is the truth, when I gave my life to Christ my wife was not SAVED so we but heads big time because I wanted her to give her heart to God like me. This scripture here is so true, I guarantee you do what God says and see how the unbelievers turn on you.

    June 23, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • Ting

      So much for the "kinder, gentler" NT.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • 1word

      Everyone wants God to be nice but you can be vial and hateful towards him? God loves all people and he is merciful, but he will treat those that despise him the same way. A unbeliever despise God, you can say you don't but you don't LOVE him with all your heart.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • Cq

      "God's word is the truth,"
      Which is just your opinion, right? Many of us are not convinced. What kind of a "guarantee" can you offer? Get one life free if heaven isn't waiting for you? Come on, there is no guarantee because there's no coming back to complain that you were cheated after you're dead. Why not be honest then and make it clear to people that there is no certainty in what you believe?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
  18. Keith

    Why are there hundreds of US Army tanks on the streets of North St. Louis, MO? Why doesn't cnn do something useful for the American people for a change and look into this?

    June 23, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • Jesus was a Mongoloid Idiot!!!!!!!!

      Um, there arent.
      You mongoloid idiot!!

      June 23, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • Keith

      Oh, really? Then what is this?

      June 23, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • OH Noes


      Go to your bunker - immediately... and STAY there TFN.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Keith

      Idiot huh? Who's the idiot now?
      I'm sure that wasn't one of the talking points issued by the Ministry of Truth, er uh, I mean the White House Press. Keep chugging that cnn/fox koolaid, morons.

      June 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
  19. HG Wells

    Atheists/non-believers are not only fools because of their disbelief in God.
    Proof they spend hours/months/weeks/years together arguing based on a negative assertion.
    What a waste of life:(

    June 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Beat Punchmeat

      You don't understand what atheism is then.

      Few atheist people say "there is no god". Even Richard Dawkins says "there's probably no god".

      While a god is a possible scenario, it's highly unlikely.

      June 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Jimmy G.

      The tiny amount of arguing done by atheists is nothing compared to the sheer waste of money and effort on the part of religious people.
      And, yes, arguing with schizophrenic idiots is probably a waste of time, but maybe someone will read these words who isn't a complete idiot and maybe it will help them understand how crazy people are worthless as intelligent conversationalists.

      June 23, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • bubbles

      Many famous scientists were religious but atheists tend to deny that

      June 23, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
    • Cq

      HG Wells
      How is the atheist position any more negative than the assertion that good people may still be tortured for eternity just because they didn't worship a particular god?

      June 23, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Noa

      Not a total waste! God uses people like this to demonstrate what foolʻs look like, talk like, smell like etc. When they post on the Blog topics and spout their dogma they get exposed and run through every time! Their days are numbered! Keep feeding them to the Christians!

      July 3, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
  20. Follower of Christ

    I want to find the person who made up the story about Jesus. Because of that person Jesus's name is the most powerful name in the world. Because of that person me and billions of people put our faith in Jesus and would happliy die for Him. Because of that person more songs are inspired by Jesus than any other person. Because of that person Jesus is hands down the most powerful figure known to man. Why oh why did someone make all of this stuff up why. All of this happiness and joy in me is all a lie. Everything was formed and perfectly put together by expolsions and expansions. The unique human race started from monkeys. We were all born for no apparent reason, life is a big coinsidence. WHYYYYYYYYYY.... I cant even keep this going non-believers lol this is how foolish you guys sound when you deny God. Actually worse

    June 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • Jimmy G.

      That you are clearly ignorant and misinformed is clear from reading your silly post.
      What is truly sad is that you are wasting tons of time and money and personal energy in believing a bunch of PROVEN LIES.

      When you pray it is for nothing to nothing. Prayers are just you talking to your imagination. Nothing happens outside of your head because there is no god and nothing you say can change that demonstrable and provable FACT.

      June 23, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      Follower of Christ... NICE!!

      It's refreshing to see another Christian engage in some cutting satire.

      June 23, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • 1word


      June 23, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Ting

      On the other hand, maybe the Bible is right. Why are we here? Why did God make us? For his amusement? So he can torture people for eternity because he is the most sick and evil son of beach to ever exist?

      June 23, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Bet

      It's refreshing to see another Christian engage in some cutting satire.

      Satire is a literary device intended to be a constructive form of social commentary, using wit, strong irony and sarcasm. It often pretends to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack.

      In other words, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • TheCapitalist

      When I say, "A dog's coat gets thicker in the winter, therefore we evolved from a one-celled amoeba"...

      It meets the definition of satire that you have just given...

      June 23, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • Cq

      If God had not created anything to worship him then he wouldn't have been a "god", right? He would have just been a lonely, child-like figure with no friends, or toys to play with.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • michigan

      @ jimmy g thats a lie with what your saying! I've had my prayers answered. There was no way to explain it other then it was a act of god. i've been through some things in my life and when i needed god the most he was there for me. That alone is why my faith in Jesus can't be broken. Plus there is several facts from the Bible that are proven by science.

      Is there a lot of hypocrites and evil people in the churches today. yeah there is! for one only god can judge me so i could care less what people have to say. I follow the word of god not any human telling me i can't be Christian for the way i dress or whatever else they don't like about me. we all sin just in different ways. Thats why we have Jesus! The churches aren't evil, evil people infiltrate the churches like child molesters. just like child molesters are teachers or they say there out to help at risk children but they use that as a cover up to molest kids.

      June 23, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • Bet

      @ Cap

      I was referring to Follower of Christ's post, which you called "cutting satire". It's not.

      June 23, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
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 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
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.