September 20th, 2012
01:41 PM ET

soundoff (795 Responses)
  1. Giao Hoan

    JoEL is slicker than a monkey puking on a wet log 😉

    September 22, 2012 at 12:19 am |
  2. hippypoet

    Religion has served a purpose and we should all be thankful to it,seriously. But lies it always was and still is and so the world is finally awakening. Science is still in its infancy. If we had the ability to understand the natural world as we do now before now the world would be a different place. Well, maybe the world would be nothing more then what the future is for us now. Asides from having answers provided by modern science now is little different from our past where notions of truth ruled! Interesting thought to ponder. Without religion however, many will find a lack of connection with complete strangers...i mean besides being a fellow human of course. The thought arises now what unifying idea can bring together a race, then the species? Or will we forever maintain the path of selfdestruction but now just be honest about the reasons? – Land. Money. Power. – This "idea" will be the power struggle of the 2100's. Mark my words. Without a unifying idea or force i fear the worst for a selfdestructive species now without reasons to be good for we now "know" heaven is just another "idea".

    world peace – how about that as an "idea"... can you get behind the belief in the human species and our ability to achieve such an actionless goal?

    September 21, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Jim

      Science and its minions are responsible for just as much death if not more than religion could ever dream up. When you are nothing but a result of time + matter + chance you are not worth very much and easily replaceable with another monkey. So be carefull what you wish for.

      September 22, 2012 at 5:07 am |
    • truth be told

      Atheists have murdered and tortured more people in the last century than were killed in all previous centuries. How does torture and mass murder contribute to world peace?

      September 22, 2012 at 5:12 am |
    • Joey Navis

      what atheists are u speaking of who murdered all of those people this century???

      September 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • fwilms

      I can see how one might say that atheist contributed to murder with Lenin, although I am an atheist. Lenin did want to eradicate religion. To say science has murdered more than any religion is pure nonsense. Yes, science was used to develop the atomic bomb, but it was not used in the name of science or for the purpose if furthering science. It was used as a tool with another purpose in mind. Religious zealots have been murdering each other to promote their individual brand of religion since religion began, and continue this today.

      September 23, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • hippypoet

      lol, stupid people are everywhere – first off – people kill people – sometimes animals not of the human origin but still lacking any need of any religious standings.

      second – your right, i can be replaced...so can we all – we are not special and thats the real catch of religion – that and the idea of an afterlife – first religion says that you are special – god made you...then you are told be good and follow his laws ..if you do you get an afterlife. yay for you and your childish beliefs – hows santa working out for ya?

      it is time to grow up and take responibility for your actions instead laying blame on imaginary friends.

      why is the thought of world peace such a laughible one when the reality of death over life ( which suc.ks) is often a better choice for many?

      you know, your right...lets all kill eachother because my god said that i couldn't suffer a moron to live – now die.

      September 23, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
  3. edhis

    Olsteen dodged the entire question. He said it's a sin then tried to disguise what he says is the severity of it. He didn't give a quality answer because he knew he could be pinned down by science and others....... very slick.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
    • Acdsasf

      I agree. He's one slick fence sitter.

      September 21, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • Jay Bird

      He was not firm in his convictions because he really doesn't know what he professes to believe. He proclaims to know the Bible and he uses that "knowledge" in his mass worship services but he uses what he thinks he knows selectively in order to spout his own causes to make money off of others.
      He is wishy washy because he is a fake.

      September 22, 2012 at 12:17 am |
    • fwilms

      He's making lots of money, but at least, it appears to me, he is not doing it at other's expense: by firing flames of hate. I do know some kind and loving Christians, but I have to keep that in perspective; how kind and loving is it to deny me and my partner of 32 years the right to get married by voting against us at the polls?

      September 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
  4. ttwp

    If you don't recognize that you are a sinner, then there is no need for God. But we all are sinners in need of a Savior. If you say you haven't sinned then the truth is not in you and you make God out to be a liar. For we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ.

    September 21, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Bob

      Jesus is long dead and rotted away. Get over that delusion already. So much evil has been done within what your religion dictates that it is high time for the world to put it in the past and leave it behind. Seriously, think about it; the whole Jesus sacrifice and love thing is a big load of crap. The whole premise of Christianity that the death of the son of god would have been any kind of “sacrifice” and was required to deal with “sin” is utter nonsense. This is a supposed omnipotent being that we are talking about.

      Christians, think this through a bit: how come your ‘omnipotent’ creature couldn’t do all that supposed saving without the loony son sacrifice bit anyway? And for that matter, how was it a sacrifice at all, when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time it wants with less than a snap of its fingers? Pretty feeble god it is that you’ve made for yourself there.

      Give that some thought and maybe it will help you leave your delusions behind. You will remain a laughingstock otherwise, and the more you dwell in your silly delusion and ancient myths, instead of keeping up with advances in medicine and technology, the more America slips downward relative to the rest of the world in science and other fields.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

      September 21, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
      • Mark37

        Yes Bob – brilliant post. Well done

        December 8, 2013 at 8:55 pm |
    • Acdsasf

      Bob, that's a great post! That would have taken me three days and 50,000 words to say the same thing. Thanks.

      September 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
  5. John

    "The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman – period. "

    Some argue that since homosexual behavior is "unnatural" it is contrary to the order of creation. Behind this pronouncement are stereotypical definitions of masculinity and femininity that reflect rigid gender categories of patriarchal society. There is nothing unnatural about any shared love, even between two of the same gender, if that experience calls both partners to a fuller state of being. Contemporary research is uncovering new facts that are producing a rising conviction that homosexuality, far from being a sickness, sin, perversion or unnatural act, is a healthy, natural and affirming form of human sexuality for some people. Findings indicate that homosexuality is a given fact in the nature of a significant portion of people, and that it is unchangeable.

    Our prejudice rejects people or things outside our understanding. But the God of creation speaks and declares, "I have looked out on everything I have made and `behold it (is) very good'." . The word (Genesis 1:31) of God in Christ says that we are loved, valued, redeemed, and counted as precious no matter how we might be valued by a prejudiced world.

    There are few biblical references to homosexuality. The first, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is often quoted to prove that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But the real sin of Sodom was the unwillingness of the city's men to observe the laws of hospitality. The intention was to insult the stranger by forcing him to take the female role in the sex act. The biblical narrative approves Lot's offer of his virgin daughters to satisfy the sexual demands of the mob. How many would say, "This is the word of the Lord"? When the Bible is quoted literally, it might be well for the one quoting to read the text in its entirety.

    Leviticus, in the Hebrew Scriptures, condemns homosexual behaviour, at least for males. Yet, "abomination", the word Leviticus uses to describe homosexuality, is the same word used to describe a menstruating woman. Paul is the most quoted source in the battle to condemn homosexuality ( 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 and Romans 1: 26-27). But homosexual activity was regarded by Paul as a punishment visited upon idolaters by God because of their unfaithfulness. Homosexuality was not the sin but the punishment.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul gave a list of those who would not inherit the Kingdom of God. That list included the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. Sexual perverts is a translation of two words; it is possible that the juxtaposition of malakos, the soft, effeminate word, with arsenokoitus, or male prostitute, was meant to refer to the passive and active males in a homosexual liaison.

    Thus, it appears that Paul would not approve of homosexual behavior. But was Paul's opinion about homosexuality accurate, or was it limited by the lack of scientific knowledge in his day and infected by prejudice born of ignorance? An examination of some of Paul's other assumptions and conclusions will help answer this question. Who today would share Paul's anti-Semitic attitude, his belief that the authority of the state was not to be challenged, or that all women ought to be veiled? In these attitudes Paul's thinking has been challenged and transcended even by the church! Is Paul's commentary on homosexuality more absolute than some of his other antiquated, culturally conditioned ideas?

    Three other references in the New Testament (in Timothy, Jude and 2 Peter) appear to be limited to condemnation of male sex slaves in the first instance, and to showing examples (Sodom and Gomorrah) of God's destruction of unbelievers and heretics (in Jude and 2 Peter respectively).

    That is all that Scripture has to say about homosexuality. Even if one is a biblical literalist, these references do not build an ironclad case for condemnation. If one is not a biblical literalist there is no case at all, nothing but prejudice born of ignorance, that attacks people whose only crime is to be born with an unchangeable sexual predisposition toward those of their own sex.

    September 21, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • Jeff Johnson

      I 100% agree with you. Well said!

      September 23, 2012 at 11:26 am |
  6. cb

    The key words with most anti-gay groups are “tax exempt”. If all the money made by groups like this were TAXED, they would fine a real job. I just do not think gay life is that big a deal for most people? Most of us have a hard time worrying about our own life. For anti-gay groups it is all about the money. But if you DO spend every day of your life worrying about “the gays”, you may just want to talk to someone.

    September 21, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  7. Paul

    Anyone stupid enough to fall for the plasticky greasy slimeball that Osteen is, is probably dumb enough to fall for the Christian myths hook line and sinker. Osteen excels only at taking money from easy marks.

    September 21, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • Joey Navis

      so ur problem with osteen is that people give him money????

      September 22, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
  8. Atheism is Great for Kids and Grown-Ups Too!

    It's really best for all people including children to have an agnostic approach to god, and an atheistic approach to all religion. It keeps things simple for kids, and lets them be all that they can be. They just need to be taught that some things, like all religion, were just made up by salesmen and politicians from long ago. (Yes, charlatan folklore and spam started long before the Bible; what would make you think they hadn't?) And they need to be taught that other things, like God, we really don't know a damn thing about.

    Atheists have strong minds and don't need a religion. Many religious folk have the best intentions. But too often, religious folk run and hide their misdeeds within their religion (and by doing so, they disserve society). And too often, religious folk are easily offended when someone mocks their make-believe characters – and, as we can see they can get really CRAZY!

    Although there are many religious folk with good intentions – some selflessly helping others, religions and religious organizations are, as a whole, just big old clubs – each trying to out do each other and inspiring hate and division (often disguised as love) along the way. The problem is that people too easily buy into religion and don't realize how unfounded it all is. And when they buy into it, they buy into a lot of really old, really weird tenets that are nothing but harmful for the human species.

    Take Christianity, for instance. Just look at all the things that Christians argue about amongst themselves today – abortion, men's and women's roles in the church, celibacy, contraception, acceptance of gays, etc. Most of these issues have their roots in the conflicted, unfounded tenets of early Christianity. Non-Mormons harp on Joseph Smith these days. But we really don't have any more proof at all to believe that Paul, the self-proclaimed "apostle" was anything more than an ordinary man who needed to make up religious "sales literature" to survive and spread his own personal beliefs. And yet a good chunk of the NT is attributed to Paul and accepted by many Christians. And a lot of what he wrote about has to do with many of the issues I mentioned above that have Christians fighting amongst themselves hundreds of years later. It's way too unfounded to argue over.

    Get a good cup of tea, and sit down and collect your thoughts. If you find it helpful to pray to a god (something you know nothing about), fine. But it is really healthier for the mind to leave behind all the characters that people over the centuries have invented or given powers to, for which there is little or no foundation. Because with those invented characters and powers – that's where division and hate join the little party in your mind. That's where, in your mind, you are inheriting the division and hate from ordinary politicians, lobbyists and salesmen from long ago. My goodness.

    mama kindless

    September 21, 2012 at 9:39 am |
  9. Blake

    Joel why didn't you just tell them the truth? That you don't really care as long as the coffers keep filling up.

    September 21, 2012 at 9:11 am |
  10. Shelia J. Webb, London, KY

    "....work out your own salvation?" God worked out our salvation by dying on the cross and rising the third day. All we have to do is believe and have faith. The bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman – period. There isn't a fine line to that. I'm praying for Joel that he reads the Bible and finds out what the truth really is.

    September 21, 2012 at 8:25 am |
    • midwest rail

      Now show me where it says that in the Consti_tution.

      September 21, 2012 at 8:35 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Hey Sheely Wheely,

      Where exactly does the Bible say that ?
      It also says :
      ■Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

      ■Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines or se'xual slaves in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

      ■A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible.

      ■If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21).

      ■A ra'p"ist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29), unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he ra'p'ed her in the country, but both of them killed if he ra'p'ed her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

      ■If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

      ■Women must marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

      ■Women are the property of their fathers until married and the property of their husbands thereafter (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

      ■The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).

      ■Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

      ■Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

      ■It is better to not get married at all—although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

      So you do have quite a few options there, darlin.

      September 21, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      BTW, St. Paul cooked up "salvation", and grafted that Greek mystery cult idea onto the Jesus cult. You really practice Paulianity. What ? You never read Mark. Jesus said not ONE thing about "salvation".

      In Matthew the young man asked him what he should do to have he eternal life. Jesus said to him "keep the (Jewish) commandments". Nothing else was required. I hope you're a Jew.

      September 21, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Tpat81

      Hi Shelia,

      Could you provide me the chapter and verse for the scripture that describes marriage as you describe it? I've been looking myself, but haven't found one that is clear enough for me. Thanks for your help.

      September 21, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gosh, Sheila. How could it take you this long to respond, unless the reason you can't provide said information is that it DOESN'T EXIST?

      September 21, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
  11. Reality

    Dear Joel,

    Please respond to the following:

    o "Abrahamics" like yourself believe that your god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

    To wit:

    1. The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

    “ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

    2. "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

    3. See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

    September 21, 2012 at 7:45 am |
  12. AvdBerg

    For the spiritual truth (John 14:17) about the above mentioned subject we encourage you to read the fifth item listed on the ‘Current Events’ page of our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

    Every time Joel Osteen is questioned about the subject he waffles to come up with an answer as he is spiritually blind and his answer always turns out to be an abomination (1 Cor. 2:14). He is a false apostle who does not preach the Gospel of Christ but a false Christ (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cor. 11:13-15).

    So, why would Piers Morgan take the time to interview him and ask for his worldly opinion on politics or any other topic? After all, for whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world (1 John 5:4) and does he not know that friendship of the world is enmity with God and whosoever therefore shall be a friend of the world is the enemy of God (James 4:4)?

    For a better understanding how Joel Osteen and Piers Morgan deceive the people through their respective ministry and TV Program and the spirit they serve, we invite you to read the articles ‘False Apostles and False Christs’ and ‘CNN Belief Blog – Sign of the Times’, listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

    People prefer darkness over light (John 3:19) and as a result God provided them with such a strong delusion that He sent them Joel Osteen and many others. Please visit our website and learn who they are.

    All of the other pages and articles listed on our website explain how and by whom this whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9.

    September 21, 2012 at 6:28 am |
    • Reality

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

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

      September 21, 2012 at 7:47 am |
    • mama kindless

      Revelation?? Everyone knows whoever wrote that was high as a kite. St. John the Opium Addict, evidently.

      September 21, 2012 at 8:57 am |

      This poster is a TROLL on this site so when you see them post, just ignore it. They are proven liars and only want to sell their book to support their cult plus their website also full of lies. Don't bother visiting their site, click the report abuse link to get rid of this TROLL!

      September 21, 2012 at 11:00 am |
  13. Fluffy the Gerbil of Doom

    Bucky !!!!
    Is that really you ? The old upside-down Bucky ? Why are you not upside down ?
    BTW, we saw your BF on ESPN.

    September 21, 2012 at 6:25 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Someone started using my name so I WordPress protected it.
      I miss being upside down.
      Was it the post game show last week, or the one in the Spring ?

      September 21, 2012 at 6:30 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      Any other rodents still around ? Bippy still here ? Jason told me about something Bippy created as a name ..
      something about the Lesser Squirrel god of ?? .something to do with ozone depleting hair products.
      We laughed for days.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:49 am |
    • Fluffy the Gerbil of Doom

      Bippy may have a new name. I'm not sure. The old Bipster does show rarely. He is the most hilarious dude on the blog.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:57 am |
  14. all atheists are gay but not all gays are atheists


    September 21, 2012 at 6:18 am |
    • mama kindless

      That is the stupidest thing I have read on here. I guess truth be told put some extra bath salts in his coffee this morning.

      September 21, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Acdsasf

      Pathetic comment.

      September 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
  15. There is transformed lives

    Proven .

    September 21, 2012 at 5:56 am |
    • realbuckyball

      "Lives" requires a plural verb, honey. Shall I refer you to a GED program ?

      September 21, 2012 at 6:04 am |
    • nope


      September 21, 2012 at 6:06 am |
    • an alias

      like a nick name does not have to be grammatically correct
      go screw yourself

      September 21, 2012 at 6:07 am |
    • thecollegeadmissionsguru

      @an Alias... Way to prove that being a Christian is so NOT very "christlike" Saying go screw yourself is so sweet...

      September 21, 2012 at 6:10 am |
    • man has been to the moon

      and accurate, who said they were a Christian?

      September 21, 2012 at 6:11 am |
    • realbuckyball

      I'm waiting for my boyfriend to get back from his hockey away-game. He can screw me, but thanks for being concerned about my se'x life.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:19 am |
    • realbuckyball is gay


      September 21, 2012 at 6:27 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      God damn right he is. And fvcking proud of it.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:32 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      THERE IS is an idiot.

      September 21, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
  16. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things.

    September 21, 2012 at 5:23 am |
    • realbuckyball

      I prayed you would go away. Please confirm for us your statement is true, and get lost.

      September 21, 2012 at 5:51 am |
    • There is a church


      September 21, 2012 at 5:54 am |
    • There is science


      September 21, 2012 at 5:55 am |
    • There is transformed lives

      Proven .

      September 21, 2012 at 5:57 am |
    • There is salvation

      We are found

      September 21, 2012 at 5:58 am |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things
      Proven !

      September 21, 2012 at 5:58 am |
    • realbuckyball

      The moon is made of green cheese.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:05 am |
    • thecollegeadmissionsguru

      You are an idiot.. Proven,,,

      September 21, 2012 at 6:08 am |
    • man has been to the moon

      You are a liar

      September 21, 2012 at 6:08 am |
    • man has been to the moon

      Agreed that the real buck is a card carrying moron.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:10 am |
    • thecollegeadmissionsguru

      I believe I have been MISUNDERSTOOD here... I am NOT saying Bucky is an idiot at all.. quite the contrary, I am stating that those who claim that atheism is bad, or that religion is somehow the default to good, are idiots.. that's all.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:12 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things", but your assertions regarding atheism and prayer are unfounded. The degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is 0.0. To help you understand the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements, I will access my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE). Using my IEE module, the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent correct statements is: "TOTAL FAIL".

      I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book might help you overcome this problem:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
      by the Alzheimer's Disease Society

      September 21, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Jesus

      Prayer does not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs! *

      September 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • tuvia suks

      Prayer changes things. Proven. I prayed for jeebus, and he and I got it together. So ‘HeavenSent’ a night it was. ‘TruthBeTold’, it was just carnal. That ‘Deacon’ guy told me all about it. He had a ‘CatholicEngineer’ and someone from ‘MiddleRiver’ arrange it all. Changed me for sure. I’m carnal for jeebus

      September 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
  17. George in CA

    Don't blame Christians, hom0$exuallity was considered the same as ped0filia and be@atiality since ancient times. The Greeks, who are overly expressive (we have one word for Love, they have several) have one word that covers all three. Hom0$exuality and Ped0filia were rampant in ancient Rome. Yet because Christians say "Don't do that" they are made out to be monsters.

    You can try to science it away, it's a gene, etc, but the truth is, they are all the same.

    September 21, 2012 at 3:31 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Prove it. Since you Bible says that none of the animals "proved" an acceptable mate as your stupid god was too fvcking dumb to know what to give him for a mate, and he had to try all the animals out, I guess you may be right.
      Let's see the Bible quotes condemning and saying pedophilia was the same. Do you even know when they got married back then ?

      September 21, 2012 at 4:17 am |
    • realbuckyball


      September 21, 2012 at 4:22 am |
    • realbuckyball


      September 21, 2012 at 4:23 am |
    • realbuckyball


      September 21, 2012 at 4:25 am |
    • realbuckyball


      September 21, 2012 at 4:26 am |
    • realbuckyball

      And with the English class try a Logic class also.
      "You can try to science it away, it's a gene, etc, but the truth is, they are all the same" is a non-sequitur, and actually meaningless, as you have not said whether you are talking about the cause or the behaviors. Whether they are the same or not, (the result), which you have asserted with no evidence, has nothing to do with the cause, which you have also provided no evidence for, thus your statement is a non sequitur.

      September 21, 2012 at 4:32 am |
    • realbuckyball

      If you say that your experience of se'xuality involves choice, (and if not why are you so special, or the exception), then that means you are saying YOU chose to be straight, and at some point could have gone either way. Are you SURE you want to be telling people you are bise'xual, George ?

      September 21, 2012 at 4:56 am |
    • thecollegeadmissionsguru

      @George – allow me to introduce you to the year 2012.....

      September 21, 2012 at 6:15 am |
    • liarbulkyball

      Get it over with or get lost.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:15 am |
    • 2357

      God loves ALL sinners and desire their most sincere worship. Prove it?
      He has kept you living hasn't he?

      September 21, 2012 at 6:37 am |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      If god is perfect, she needs nothing, including worship. "Desire" is a human emotion, anthropomorphically projected onto a non-existent being.
      Desire also requires time.
      If god requires time, she didn't create it.
      So much for god.

      September 21, 2012 at 6:54 am |
  18. realbuckyball

    So since the Christians know nothing about their own cult's origins, with respect to this question, i guess an a-theist will, once again, have to enlighten them.

    Ho'mose'xuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.
    There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were as'sumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.
    There was also no notion of a continuum of se'xual behaviors, (bise'xuality), as science recognizes today.
    Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

    In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.

    The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (as'sumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were as'sumed to be straight), engaging in same-se'x behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

    Why ?
    It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
    THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with se'x. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not se'x.

    This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.

    The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

    Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

    There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

    #1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
    #2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
    #3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

    So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

    The injunction against male same s'ex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
    (There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
    So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

    Same-se'x behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
    Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
    ( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

    So what does this tell us ?
    It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
    The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
    The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
    There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.

    The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about ho'mose'xuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

    Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

    The myth is followed closely by it's counter example of in-hospitaity in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about s'ex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.

    Another great irony that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality.

    ref ; Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", "Who Wrote the Bible", and many other academic papers.

    It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fvcking Bible.

    September 21, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • George in CA

      LOL, wow where to start. I guess the quickest way is to talk about Lev 18:22. The word used in Hebrew is "tow`ebah" not "Toi-va", which does in fact mean "abomination". Since you couldn't get that simple little thing right, how can you be an "expert" on Jewish culture and ancient times.

      Maybe just stick with your Religion of Atheism, nice try though...

      September 21, 2012 at 3:39 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Too bad you don't have a copy in archaic Hebrew, idiot. That's not ancient Hebrew.
      Drs. Dolansky and Friedman know one hell of a lot more than you obviously do.

      September 21, 2012 at 4:13 am |
    • realbuckyball

      And BTW, go take an English class, retard. A-symptomatic means without symptoms, a-symmetrical means without symmetry. A-theism means without gods. Go tell William L. Craig you want your money back.

      September 21, 2012 at 4:20 am |
    • Kebos

      Good work, Buckey. Excellent points.

      George: Keep using your stone tools. Your posts are pathetic.

      September 21, 2012 at 5:23 am |
    • nope


      September 21, 2012 at 5:27 am |
    • realbuckyball

      (Obviously, I was attempting a "transliteration", or phonetic pronunciation.).
      If that's the meaning of the word, why is it not translated as abomination every other time it's used ? Why are you so inconsistent ? BTW, it also can mean "a disgusting thing", such as unclean food, idols, mixed marriages, ALL of which you fundies NEVER say one thing about these days. Nope you cafeteria bible Christians pick and choose your evils, to suit your agenda. Why is this abomination any worse than all your other abominations ?

      September 21, 2012 at 5:49 am |
    • pervert alert

      Cafeteria food generally doesn't kill. Qu eers the folks who gave the world AIDS

      September 21, 2012 at 5:53 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Ah yes. That old lie. No, it was god that planned that one. Or else .... maybe,
      Actually HIV-1 was an African monkey disease which was passed from infected monkeys, then mutated , and passed to many people who ate the meat, and also passed by straight truckers using the new trans-Africa highway, and going to infected prosti"tutes. The first cases are now seen to have come to the US long before the 1980's, (which WAS occasioned by gay people). However your as'sumption that only gay people practice an'al se'x is 100 % false. But thanks for reminding me.


      September 21, 2012 at 6:13 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Fallacy of the False Analogy. How old are you Prevert ? Like 80 ? No one uses that old word anymore. Oh wait. Trailer trash. I get it.


      September 21, 2012 at 6:15 am |
    • realbuckyball


      September 21, 2012 at 6:16 am |
    • gf

      There seems to be some argument about "loathsome" or "abomination". First, those are English words, not Hebrew. Second, a variation of that word is used 126 times. Whether it means "detestable", "loathsome", "abomination" or whatever you translate it to English ... in each instance it means something that you "shall not do". That's the essence of that word in each verse. So don't try to reverse translate based on English words and their meanings or connotations. It doesn't work that way. The best argument you as an atheist can make is that you don't believe the Bible to be true ... don't try to argue 'from' it, that's counter intuitive.

      September 21, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • llɐq ʎʞɔnq

      The POINT was not the word. It was that there were levels of the word. It does NOT say it was "loathsome" to GOD. Just loathsome...the third level. The law in the Bible was put there because the CULTURE FIRST found it unacceptable, and put it in the BIb;e, NOT that the Bible forbad it, and the culture followed it. The ABSOLUTE 100000000000 % proof of this are all the laws that YOUR culture passes over, and dismiss as unimportant, (the dietary laws, and all the other crazy laws in Leviticus you pay NO attention to). You pick and choose. Why ? Your culture drives the choice.

      September 21, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
  19. thecollegeadmissionsguru

    Osteen is a slime ball, but I'd like him to give me some of the billions he's stolen from people over the years. LOL

    September 21, 2012 at 1:03 am |
  20. AvdBerg

    For the spiritual truth (John 14:17) about the above mentioned subject we encourage you to read the fifth item listed on the ‘Current Events’ page of our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

    Every time Joel Osteen is questioned about the subject he waffles to come up with an answer as he is spiritually blind and his answer is always an abomination (1 Cor. 2:14). He is a false apostle who does not preach the Gospel of Christ but a false Christ (Matthew 24:24; 2 Cor. 11:13-15).

    So, why would Piers Morgan take the time to interview him and ask for his worldly opinion on politics or any other topic? After all, for whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world (1 John 5:4) and does he not know that friendship of the world is enmity with God and whosoever therefore shall be a friend of the world is the enemy of God (James 4:4)?

    For a better understanding how Joel Osteen and Piers Morgan deceive the people through their respective ministry and TV Program and the spirit they serve, we invite you to read the articles ‘False Apostles and False Christs’ and ‘CNN Belief Blog – Sign of the Times’, listed on our website http://www.aworlddeceived.ca

    People prefer darkness over light (John 3:19) and as a result God provided them with such a strong delusion that He sent them Joel Osteen and many others. Please visit our website and learn who they are.

    All of the other pages and articles listed on our website explain how and by whom this whole world has been deceived as confirmed in Revelation 12:9.

    September 21, 2012 at 12:58 am |

      This poster is a TROLL on this site so when you see them post, just ignore it. They are proven liars and only want to sell their book to support their cult plus their website also full of lies. Don't bother visiting their site, click the report abuse link to get rid of this TROLL!!

      September 21, 2012 at 11:01 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
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.