home
RSS
January 25th, 2013
05:01 AM ET

Belief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Friday, January 25, 2013

By Arielle Hawkins, CNN

Here's the Belief Blog’s morning rundown of the top faith-angle stories from around the United States and around the world. Click the headlines for the full stories.

From the Blog:

CNN:Twitter must identify racist, anti-Semitic posters, French court says
For months now, the French-language twittersphere has lit up with a rash of racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic tweets using the hashtags #UnBonJuif (a good Jew), #SiMonFilsEstGay (if my son is gay), and #SiMaFilleRamèneUnNoir (if my daughter brings home a black guy). Last fall, under pressure from French advocacy group Union of Jewish Students (UEJF), Twitter agreed to remove some offensive tweets. In October 2012, at Berlin's request, Twitter also suspended a German neo-Nazi account based in the city of Hanover, the first time the company had responded to such a government request.

Tweet of the Day:

Photos of the Day

Palestinian scouts parade playing music during a ceremony commemorating the birth of Prophet Mohammed, known in Arabic as 'al-Mawlid al-Nabawi'outside the Dome of the Rock the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, Islam's third holiest site, in the old city of Jerusalem on January 24, 2013.

Pakistani mosque is illuminated along a street to mark the Eid Milad-un-Nabi, Birth of the Prophet in Lahore on January 24, 2013. Pakistani Muslims will celebrate the birth of the Prophet Mohammed on January 25.

Archbishop Nurhan Manougian, 65, the new elected Armenian patriarch of Jerusalem walks at the Armenian Church in Jerusalem's old city on January 24 2013. Archbishop Nurhan Manougian has been elected the 97th Armenian Orthodox patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the five custodians of Christian religious sites in the Holy Land, sources told AFP.

Enlightening Reads:

The Colorado Independent: In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people
Lori Stodghill was seven-months pregnant with twin boys and feeling sick when she arrived at St. Thomas More hospital in 2006. She passed out as she was being wheeled into an examination room. Medical staff tried to resuscitate her but, as became clear only later, a main artery feeding her lungs was clogged and the clog led to a massive heart attack. The patient died at the hospital less than an hour after she arrived and her twins died in her womb. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Stodghill’s husband Jeremy, a prison guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit. But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

Huffington Post: Catholic Bishops To Investigate Catholic Hospital Group That Argued In Lawsuit That Fetuses Are Not People
The bishops of Colorado are vowing to undertake a "full review" of the "policies and practices" a Catholic health nonprofit that has argued in medical malpractice lawsuit against it for the death two unborn children that fetuses are not people. Catholic social teaching says that fetuses are people - the argument is part of the church's strong pro-life and anti-abortion positions.

Religion News Service: S.C. Episcopal diocese claims a victory in secession struggle
The breakaway Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina has won the latest round in its fight to secede from the national church. A South Carolina judge on Wednesday (Jan. 23) issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the national church from using the name or seal of the diocese, which espouses a more traditional theology and disapproves of the national church’s acceptance of same-sex marriage and gay bishops.

New York Times: Dalai Lama Stresses Science and Secularism in Jaipur
For the Dalai Lama, whose interest in science took root 30 years ago, spiritualism and science are not incompatible. He recounted his conversations with modern scientists in which he said he had seen many ways in which Buddhism and modern science overlapped. For example, he said, look at the Buddhist theory of impermanence, the idea that the physical world is changing by the second, which was later proved by quantum physics in the movement of atoms. “What modern science was proving, Bharat already found out 2,000 years ago,” he said, using the Hindi word for India.

Religion News Service: Publishers are in seventh heaven with near-death memoirs
Do people really see a light at the end of a tunnel when they have a near-death experience? And could that be heaven up ahead? That light is shining brighter than ever these days. Heaven is hot. Hotter even than that other place. Just ask any bookseller in America. Folks have been going to heaven with amazing regularity lately. They look around — one even sat on Jesus’ lap — then come back to report on the trip. It’s a lucrative journey.

Quote of the Day:

We need to trust in the fact that the basic human desire to love and to be loved, and to find meaning and truth - a desire which God himself has placed in the heart of every man and woman - keeps our contemporaries ever open to ... the 'kindly light' of faith.

- Pope Benedict XVI in his message for World Communications Day

Join the conversation…

CNN: Response by the Church of Scientology to 'Going Clear'
In response to CNN's request for comment on its story about Lawrence Wright's book "Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood & the Prison of Belief," the network received several letters from the Church of Scientology and its attorneys. Given the sensitive nature of the material in the book and the Church of Scientology's detailed response to CNN, CNN is making the church's responses available in full. The e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of individuals have been redacted.

- A. Hawkins

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (576 Responses)
  1. Live4Him

    @Observer : No marriage for a gay couple no matter how long they have been committed to each other.

    What's your definition of "commitment"? I doubt that it is the same as mine. According to gay advocate's research, almost every gay couple who has been together for 2 or more years are in an open relationship – meaning that outside partners are allowed. To me, that is not commitment, but the partners constantly looking for someone better and unable to find it.

    January 26, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • .

      Learn to use the reply button so you look like you might be at least a little intelligent!

      January 26, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • YeahRight

      "According to gay advocate's research, almost every gay couple who has been together for 2 or more years are in an open relationship – meaning that outside partners are allowed. "

      That's a lie. Hundreds of thousands of experts have shown that like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.

      Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

      A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.

      Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      50% of marriages end in divorce and obviously we are only talking about heteros. lol.

      Keep defending the "sanct-ity of marriage" in a book that says you MUST marry your rapist. PATHETIC.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Pete

      "To me, that is not commitment, but the partners constantly looking for someone better and unable to find it."

      I am so sick of people like this. Dude the people with the highest divorce rate in this country are Christians – adultery! That means they too are looking for other people better and aren't able to find it. What a hypocrite.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • Live4Him

      Observer tried to say titty and couldn't. LOL!

      January 26, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • just wondering

      observer
      why do you continue to use that lame argument when it has been repeatedly explained to you that that is not what the original Hebrew says? Are you incapable of learning?

      January 26, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Answer

      "why do you continue to use that lame argument when it has been repeatedly explained to you that that is not what the original Hebrew says? Are you incapable of learning?"

      Funny but it seems that no matter how many facts are given to Christians about gays they still come back with the same bigoted arguments so they are incapable of learning?

      January 26, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • odo

      Some people may just choose to not bother with the html because of time. observer's post was plenty readable – it seems Live4Him learned a new toy he wanted to show off.

      tit can be expressed as such by keying t<b></b>it (embedding html's begin and end bold tags in the proper place in the "dirty" word)

      January 26, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • Observer

      Answer,

      Why not get a job as a biblical scholar since you are a BLOGGER who thinks you know more than the professionals. lol.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • Observer

      Answer,

      I apologize. My mistake. My response was supposed to be to just wondering.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • myweightinwords

      What's your definition of "commitment"? I doubt that it is the same as mine. According to gay advocate's research, almost every gay couple who has been together for 2 or more years are in an open relationship – meaning that outside partners are allowed. To me, that is not commitment, but the partners constantly looking for someone better and unable to find it.

      Most people that have what you would define as an "open marriage" are not as open as you might think. Even within such a family structure there are rules and commitment to those rules. Just because it doesn't look like your marriage does not make it any less committed or any less a marriage.

      I can only offer anecdotal evidence here, but considering the number of gay and poly people I know....most of the gay couples I know who have been together more than a year are monogamous. Less than half of them are poly. Ninety percent of the poly people I know are straight or bi.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @YeahRight : Hundreds of thousands of experts have shown that like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships.

      For these men the term "monogamy" simply doesn't necessarily mean sexual exclusivity....The term "open relationship" has for a great many gay men come to have one specific definition: A relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often, put away their resentment and jealousy, and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners.
      Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997): 213

      January 26, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @YeahRight : Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships.

      A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer
      Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)

      The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.
      "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, http://www.glcensus.org

      So, we see a CLEAR difference between the two types of relationship.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Most people that have what you would define as an "open marriage" are not as open as you might think.

      I'm using the definitions of the researchers.

      A Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.
      Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031

      Bell and Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.
      A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309

      January 26, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      First of all, one of your sources is dated 1978. It is irrelevant. The second study is Dutch, which doesn't necessarily mean that it applies anywhere else.

      I want you to consider something. You seem to be hung up on the notion that se/b>x outside of a marriage is damaging to everyone involved, that somehow every sexual encounter will destroy a person mentally if it isn't held within a marriage commitment.

      What if that isn't true?

      Put aside your beliefs for a moment. Put aside your own experience. Consider a person who at 40 has had sex with say 10 people. Let's say of those ten, 4 were in long term relationships. One of them is an ongoing "friends with benefits" situation where the two are friends, discuss the emotional situations, and if neither of them is dating they help fill each other's needs. The last five were casual, either with people they considered dating or with people that they knew they only wanted sex with.

      By your estimation, this person must hate themselves, and be emotionally damaged. What if he/she isn't? What if she was emotionally mature, had self respect and self love and was completely fine emotionally and mentally?

      Wouldn't that disprove your theory?

      January 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • odo

      Live4Him references Michelangelo Signorile, Life Outside (New York: HarperCollins, 1997): 213

      this is the most helpful critical review of that book on Amazon:

      As a gay man who has lived in NYC since the 50s I found Signorile's picture of gay male life in the Fifties and Sixties and the judgements he made about those years to be a mass of threadbare cliches. Good God! Who did he interview to get such a narrow and crippled portrait of those years? He clearly lacks a knowledge of the broad range and nuancing of the gay male subculture of that era. This very poor beginning makes it difficult to take the rest of the book as seriously as Signorile clearly wants the reader to.

      The "post-AIDS" era of the gay male subculture has been marked by a terribly uneasy attitude toward the preceding pre-AIDS era, and has seen the male subculture become something of a caboose on the train of feminism, with ambiguous and sometimes bogus issues of political correctness and the emulation of mainstream – white, middle class – goals and lifestyles being promoted as desiderata. Signorile's book is evidence of this interesting turn of events, but it is not much in the way of an analysis.

      The entire work would have come off better if the author had skipped the assertions of research and simply done it as an confessional essay entitled something on the order of "Afraid of Ourselves."

      George Chauncey's "Gay New York" was a credible study of the history and sociology of pre-WW II gay New York. We need something as fine and well done on the later years of gay American history. This book isn't it.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • odo

      Live4Him: "So, we see a CLEAR difference between the two types of relationship." [regarding tenure of marriage]

      Statistics on gay couples may have changed quite a bit since the years that you referenced. For certain, the environment in many states and areas to permit gay couples to live comfortably "out" has increased since those years which should encourage longer-lasting relationships. Do you have any stats of more recent studies on this?

      January 26, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • odo

      Amsterdam? Get real, Live4Him. Using that as an example of anywhere other than there is ridiculous. That's like someone doing a study on drug abuse of a certain age range and also using Amsterdam as a typical city. It is not. Seems like you have your head stuck in old studies.

      January 26, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • @Live4Him-Great posts!

      You do a fantastic job in speaking the truth!

      January 26, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
    • YeahRight

      L4H I am quoting from the experts in 2013! Typical Christian using outdated material.

      Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."

      January 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
  2. Live4Him

    @Akira : So I take it you are not a fan of technology, either?

    I like technology, just not all the uses that it is put to.

    ------–

    @Akira : abortion is legal, and will continue to remain that way. I will have to assume that is also God's plan; that "free will" thing and all.

    God gave us the option to reject Him and destroy ourselves. That doesn't mean that we must take that path.

    ------–

    @Akira : plainly contradicting its own (and many others) belief when life starts...would you care to address that?

    I won't defend any other person's or organization's views. I only defend my own, which includes my views on scripture. That said, I believe that life begins at conception. At this point, it has its own unique DNA (unless its an identical twin) so it is a unique person.

    Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew a you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    January 26, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • .

      Learn to use the reply button so you look like you might be at least a little intelligent.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      “Before I formed you in the womb I knew a you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

      I've noticed that the bible is spare on statements directed at all people. You had to hijack something God said to Jeremiah. Wait on God. He'll speak to you, surely. Even now God is saying "I wasn't talking to you, man."

      January 26, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Live4Him

      @. : Learn to use the reply button so you look like you might be at least a little intelligent.

      Its to inconvenient to search through all the posts to find the active ones.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      The Bible NEVER mentions abortion. It does, however, offer more to support abortion than to oppose it. Actions can speak louder than words.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • .

      "Its to inconvenient to search through all the posts to find the active ones."

      So you're a lazy sack of shit and not intelligent enough to know where you've been posting.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : The Bible NEVER mentions abortion. It does, however, offer more to support abortion than to oppose it.

      The term abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, but the concept IS addressed and punishable by death. In 21:12, it addresses the impact if a woman dies. In 21:22-25 it addresses the impact of accidental death of a "fetus".

      Exo 21
      12 “Anyone who hits a person and kills him must be put to death.

      22 “Suppose two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman, causing the baby to come out. If there is no further injury, the man who caused the accident must pay money—whatever amount the woman’s husband says and the court allows.
      23 But if there is further injury, then the punishment that must be paid is life for life,
      24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
      25 burn for burn, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      – Exodus 21:22-25 “Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a MISCARRIAGE as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.”

      Pick whatever English version of the Bible you like. The punishment for killing a fetus is a FINE (like a traffic fine? and paid to the HUSBAND, not the injured wife). The punishment for huring a PERSON is "an eye for an eye".

      January 26, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • truth be told

      observer
      Unless you are a scholar of the ancient languages you really don't know what the Bible does or does not say. You routinely ignore the literal facts presented in Hebrew and go on as if the English version was the "only" Bible available. Frankly you are proving you do not know what you are talking about.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : Pick whatever English version of the Bible you like. The punishment for killing a fetus is a FINE (like a traffic fine? and paid to the HUSBAND, not the injured wife). The punishment for huring a PERSON is "an eye for an eye".

      Oh, so you claim to read Hebrew? I've been to seminary and studied the original languages. Have you?

      The actual term meaning is "her fruit depart from her". Miscarriage implies the death of the fetus, but fruit departure implies either a miscarriage or pre-mature birth. Therefore, the punishment is applicable to the fetus, not the mother. Her life/health is covered elsewhere. This is why I quoted verse 12 – it applies to the woman.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One : I've noticed that the bible is spare on statements directed at all people.

      See my later post from Exodus 21.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Lucus

      "Oh, so you claim to read Hebrew? I've been to seminary and studied the original languages. Have you?"

      Got to love people who try and boast their education thinking it makes them better than others. It just makes you look like an egotistical jerk.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • OTOH

      Lucus,

      "Got to love people who try and boast their education thinking it makes them better than others. It just makes you look like an egotistical jerk."

      In all fairness, this is a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't deal. People are asked for their credentials... if they don't provide them, they are accused of being posers; and if they do provide them, they are accused of being braggarts and "egotistical jerks".

      January 26, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • Lucus

      "People are asked for their credentials.."

      No one asked, that's the point, which is why they are an egotistical jerk.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Eye on Live4Him

      "Oh, so you claim to read Hebrew? I've been to seminary and studied the original languages. Have you?"
      LIAR! You work in a hospital, you've never been to a seminary and studied language in your LIFE! Stop your lying! I TOLD you to quit embellishing your education. You've not been to college, you use your company's time to post here, you lie constantly about your backround! Be comfortable in who you are, you lying just looks too hypocritical for words!!!

      January 26, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
  3. Robert Brown

    Everyone who has faith in the Son has eternal life. But no one who rejects him will ever share in that life, and God will be angry with them forever.

    January 26, 2013 at 8:50 am |
    • JWT

      So if you don't get eternal life then your version of a god will be angry with you forever? That's a short forever. At any rate Rob that only applies to you.

      January 26, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Robert Brown : God will be angry with them forever.

      I know that we agree on most things, but I think you went too far on this one. This is not supported in scripture. Yes, there is eternal separation from Him for that person who rejects Him, but nowhere does it say God's attitude to this rejection.

      I look at this issue as the person rejecting all love – including self-love, and spending eternity apart from that love. When you think about it, it would be like being in a lake of fire.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:23 am |
    • truth be told

      Not quite, Gods wrath is satisfied in Christ. Once the lost are cast with the demons into the lake of fire prepared for the devil and its followers, they will be forgotten forever. Satan will be given a brief reprieve at the end of the millenium then returned to the lost for all eternity without hope and in perpetual torment.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • odo

      "Gods wrath is satisfied in Christ."

      sounds kinky. glad I'm not a priest.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • Burt

      TBT will be forgotten forever folks! Yay! The troll will be tormented for eternity! YeeHaw!

      January 26, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Observer

      Yes. God doesn't care at all if you are the kindest, sweetest, most generous and caring person in the world. If you don't believe in a God who refuses to establish irrefutable proof of his existence, then he will send you to hell forever.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      God will have to coexist for eternity with the lake of fire and everything that has been cast into it. Sounds like a less than perfect solution.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:54 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : If you don't believe in a God who refuses to establish irrefutable proof of his existence, then he will send you to hell forever.

      Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:03 am |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      Yep. You might be the nicest person in the world and God doesn't want you.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • truth be told

      observer
      you make it obvious that YOU are not wanted. As a liar you have no insight into others.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : Yep. You might be the nicest person in the world and God doesn't want you.

      Ephesians 2
      8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
      9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • TrollAlert

      TBT is a hateful troll on this site. Click the report abuse link to show this troll they are not wanted.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • odo

      tbt is talking about insight – LMAO!!!!

      January 26, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • Pete

      "8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
      9 not by works, so that no one can boast."

      It's not something you do yourself, it's a gift from god so then you're god is picking and choosing not you, yet if you're the nicest person in the world you'll still be torture forever. What a monster, and that is NOT love. No wonder your religion is just a myth. What a terrible cult you belong too, but you're to brainwashed to recognize it.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Pete : It's not something you do yourself, it's a gift from god so then you're god is picking and choosing not you

      Partially right and partially wrong. Imagine you're in a building that is burning down. You're lost, blinded by the smoke and cannot find the way out. A fireman comes to you to lead you out. He leads you by the hand to lead you to safety. You have a choice – you can follow him or you can pull yourself free and wander around trying to find your own way out.

      In this scenario, both the fireman and you played a part in the decision. The same is true in God's salvation.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Robert Brown

      More accurately,

      John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Pete

      “Partially right and partially wrong. Imagine you're in a building that is burning down. You're lost, blinded by the smoke and cannot find the way out. A fireman comes to you to lead you out. He leads you by the hand to lead you to safety. You have a choice – you can follow him or you can pull yourself free and wander around trying to find your own way out.
      In this scenario, both the fireman and you played a part in the decision. The same is true in God's salvation.”

      The problem is the firefighter; the burning building and I are real in that scenario. You’re god is not. What is so pathetic is that you believe this all-powerful being actually needs the love of people who are just a speck of sand when compared to the rest of the universe. The only reason man created a god was to explain what they could not and to raise themselves above all other animals to make them feel special. The reality is we are not that special and simply a speck of sand in the history of humanity. People who are afraid of life, themselves and death need to feel loved by something else in order to feel special. The more you research and read about Christianity the more it shows it’s like all the other thousands of religions a myth.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Pete,

      I see this posted a lot, but I have never bothered to ask. Where did you get the concept that God needs us or our love?

      January 26, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Pete : The problem is the firefighter; the burning building and I are real in that scenario. You’re god is not.

      How do you know? Oh, so your FAITH tells you this. I'm sure that you've seen my logical argument concerning the existence of God/Jesus – and since you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, you don't have any logical reason to claim that God doesn't exist.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How many times do you have to be informed that one cannot prove a negative, Liver? There is no evidence that your god exists. If you can produce any, do so and the world will beat a path to your door to see it.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
  4. truth be told

    One of the greatest lies a self deceived atheist can tell is to claim they were once Christian. God is a person, a Christian is someone who has met and accepted God, you cannot unmeet someone. All atheists are liars and a useless waste to this world and the next. The greatest service an atheist can give mankind is to leave this world asap.

    January 26, 2013 at 8:40 am |
    • midwest rail

      Morning, cap'n !

      January 26, 2013 at 8:41 am |
    • truth be told

      It is uncanny, a so called atheist cannot post anything without lying to itself or someone else.

      January 26, 2013 at 8:54 am |
    • midwest rail

      Good mornin', cap'n !

      January 26, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ahh, captain azzhole is up! What time is it in Outer Bumfvck, Arkansas?

      January 26, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • Pete

      " All atheists are liars"

      More lies from the xtians – 149!

      January 26, 2013 at 10:11 am |
    • Honey Hush

      tbt Morning sweetie, how were tricks lasy night, ah I mean business? Friday after happy hour, was it busy?

      January 26, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • Live4Him

      @truth be told : a Christian is someone who has met and accepted God, you cannot unmeet someone.

      Would you reconcile this posit with the scripture below? Specifically, I'm interested in your views on verses 13-14.

      Luke 8:5
      11 “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.
      12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
      13 Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.
      14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.
      15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • truth be told

      Do not view the scriptures as a series of independent events but rather as one part of the whole, you need the whole council of the Word. Job thought he knew God but he had only heard about God, when Job met God it was a life changing experience. Hearing about is not meeting. Many are deceived by thinking that because they attended church or even made a "commitment" they are Christian. Some will even live "like" a Christians. Some will even cast out demons but at judgement God will deny them because they never knew Him.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • truth be told

      Gods proof was revealed to all mankind at Calvary and that is all you get. Atheist lies will not alter that. It has never been about goodness it has always been about righteousness, without God you have none. Those God has chosen He predestined to be His. Looks like you self deceived atheists have outsmarted yourselves and are not wanted here or there.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Live4Him

      @truth be told : Do not view the scriptures as a series of independent events but rather as one part of the whole, you need the whole council of the Word.

      Of course, but one cannot quote the entire Bible in a forum. In this parable, Jesus is clearly indicating that some will know Him, but over time "fall away". This is contrary to your posit. People CAN meet Him, but lack the fortitude to follow Him all their lives.

      Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca, ’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • truth be told

      What is your point? Truth spoken in love is not anger.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:24 am |
    • truth be told

      Are you trying to say God can't hold on to what is His?

      January 26, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "truth be told", but your repeated assertions regarding atheism are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated unfounded assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".

      January 26, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Live4Him

      @truth be told : What is your point? Truth spoken in love is not anger.

      Do you think that Jesus would say "All atheists are liars"? Do you think that is a hateful statement? Do you think it is offensive? Do you WANT to push atheists away from God's mercy?

      We have ALL sinned – and this means that we have all been liars. So, a more accurate statement would be "All people are liars". Hate causes people to attack another group of people who are different from them. Gentiles were hated in Jesus' day, yet Jesus still reached out to them. Are you reaching out to them or attacking them? Just pray about this some.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Live4Him

      @truth be told : Are you trying to say God can't hold on to what is His?

      I'm saying that neither you nor I can tell God which ones are "His". So we need to treat them ALL as if they are our brothers and sisters.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:32 am |
  5. Eye on Live4Him

    The next time I see you telling a flat out lie such as "I have a backround in engineering and data", as you did yesterday, I will bust you out. Again. Publish your beliefs all you want, but if I see you embroidering the truth about yourself again, you WILL be outed. I cannot stand a dishonest woman who wants to appear as holier-than-thou!

    January 25, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Any time you feel up to the challenge.

      January 26, 2013 at 9:29 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Eye on Live4Him : if I see you embroidering the truth about yourself again, you WILL be outed.

      Which topic would you like to start with?
      1) statistics: p-value, OR, CI, logistic regression, etc?
      2) Moments, thermodynamics, phase changes, etc?

      January 26, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • Burt

      Hey L4H you must have one huge ego with your need to respond and post constantly. Dude seriously, get a life.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Eye on Live4Him

      SHE does have a giant ego, and SHE used to post here as Chick-a-dee, pretending to be an married Italian Catholic woman who is suffering from MS. (That was heinous! WHO DOES THAT? She does!) SHE hasn't had an independent thought since SHE hooked up online with none other than....DOUGLAS, (who also posted as BurningMan, amongst others). SHE is a known LIAR.

      January 26, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
  6. Live4Him

    To whom it may concern: I am female with a son.

    January 25, 2013 at 7:47 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Well, the copy-cats have started.

      January 26, 2013 at 9:30 am |
    • for Live4Him

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCjwH3YABWw&w=640&h=360]

      January 26, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • Eye on Live4Him

      You're dening your son, now?? What kind of mother are you??

      January 26, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
  7. lionlylamb

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X9c_LNwqtU&w=640&h=360]

    January 25, 2013 at 7:20 pm |
    • Bob

      Good post! thx for sharing!

      January 25, 2013 at 7:45 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJBW49afzg&w=640&h=360]

      January 25, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajp-kqKF-Bo&w=640&h=360]

      January 25, 2013 at 9:50 pm |
  8. Observer

    Akira,

    No marriage for a gay couple no matter how long they have been committed to each other.

    Marriage for a rapist and forced on the victim.

    So much for the "sanct-ity of marriage" in the Bible.

    January 25, 2013 at 7:14 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Rom 4:5 ¶ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

      January 25, 2013 at 7:23 pm |
    • Akira

      Observer:
      I find that the absoute indignity that people put some of our citizens through is reprehensible.
      There is no reason that a committed gay couple should not be allowed to marry.
      Those that are so focused on the sex lives of others need to get their mind off what others are doing in the privacy of their own homes, and start focusing on their own lives.
      And fortunately, nobody can force a raped woman to marry her dirtbag rapist.
      I thank the Founding Fathers often for their wisdom in writing the Constitution the way they did!

      January 25, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • Observer

      Akira,

      There is nothing that I can think of that is a more heartless slap-in-the-face to a r@pe victim than to force them to marry their rapist. It's pathetic that anyone could try to support the "morals" of a book calling for such a barbaric requirement.

      January 25, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • Akira

      Observer:
      I know, right?
      As if the pain and heartache of having been raped isn't awful enough...

      January 25, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
    • Observer

      Akira,

      If you are saying you were a victim, I am sorry to hear about your horror. The Bible's moronic so-called "moral" position on it is a disgrace to any intelligent person. Good luck.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:28 am |
    • just wondering

      Where were you when it was explained to you that the original Hebrew does not indicate a forcible assault in the example you are sighting. The actual penalty for a forced r.ape under the Old Testament laws was the same as any mortal sin – death. The passage you keep coming back to dealt with a premarital consenting relationship.

      January 26, 2013 at 7:38 am |
    • Observer

      just wondering,

      Where were you while biblical SCHOLARS are translating the Bible? Fire the scholars and just ask a blogger like you.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:01 am |
  9. lionlylamb

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&w=640&h=360]

    January 25, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      The cult founder jeebus himself told his deluded followers to establish churches and fellowships around the world. Anyone who deviates from this is not a christian. He/she is a vile, revisionist toad, even worse than a christian fundamentalist.

      January 25, 2013 at 7:18 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Tank et al,

      Rom 4:5 ¶ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

      January 25, 2013 at 7:25 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7qP1nVidXk&w=640&h=360]

      January 25, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWzDAvemJG8&w=640&h=360]

      January 25, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
  10. My Dog is a jealous Dog

    What about all of the fertilized eggs that never make it to term? All the still births and miscarriages – aren't these all the work of your god? If so, your god is performing millions of abortions each and every day. I know that this is going to really stir the pot, but explain to me how you can reconcile this? How does it make any sense in your worldview?

    January 25, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
  11. Observer

    Live4HIm,

    If your wife/daughter/sister required an abortion to save their life, would you agree with it or would you tell them "tough luck" and watch them die?

    In other words, do you support abortion?

    January 25, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      I'd also just like to add one more extreme here...what about the case of rape? I bring that up because it seems to be forefront when various states are arguing for or against it.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Jeff

      I would like to add, they also don't think about the children who are born to mothers that don't want them. There's a dark secret in humanity and that is the great harm an adult is able to inflict on an unwanted child.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : If your wife/daughter/sister required an abortion to save their life, would you agree with it or would you tell them "tough luck" and watch them die? In other words, do you support abortion?

      Using this logic, abortion has always been legal in America. So, yes I support this definition of abortion.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      EVERYONE is "pro-abortion" if things get bad enough.

      EVERYONE is "pro-life". It just depends if that life is the mother or fetus.

      The actual issue is CHOICE. You apparently are anti-choice.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : You apparently are anti-choice.

      No, I'm pro-choice - as in BEFORE se.x. I just don't believe in multiple choice.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • Science

      @l4HNot good she had no chioce and lost her life.
      Laws are even changing here in courts MONEY
      Pregnant woman dies in Ireland after being denied an abortion
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/9679840/Pregnant-woman-dies-in-Ireland-after-being-denied-an-abortion.html

      January 25, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • Observer

      Live4Him,

      "Pro-choice"? lol.

      So r@pe victims have a "choice". Get serious.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • Akira

      L4Him: "No, I’m pro-choice — as in BEFORE se.x. I just don’t believe in multiple choice."

      And that is your belief; a worthy one that only you yourself can adhere to.
      Expecting anyone else to is unrealistic.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • Akira

      Observer: "If your wife/daughter/sister required an abortion to save their life, would you agree with it or would you tell them “tough luck” and watch them die?"

      I once had a conversation (ha!) on a different blog as to the severity and impact of rape with women and men. (I said it was equally atrocious.)
      This looney tune had the chutzpah to suggest that something good may come out of a woman being raped: a baby...as if that makes it all okay.
      It's equally despicable...I don't know why anyone would even use that as a reward...I had to wonder if she was related to Todd Atkins...

      January 25, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Akira : Expecting anyone else to is unrealistic

      Why? Do you think people are unable to control their lusts? I'm sorry, but I think people are better than animals.

      January 26, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So LiverDoneFailed, are you saying that married couples shouldn't have and enjoy s3x unless they intend to conceive? Sure sounds like it.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • myweightinwords

      L4H

      Why? Do you think people are unable to control their lusts? I'm sorry, but I think people are better than animals.

      The point is, you don't get to decide what "controlling lust" looks like for anyone other than you.

      January 26, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
  12. Live4Him

    @Jen : So are you saying that women that are married that have abortions don't fall in this category? What category do they fall under?

    It is still for c.o.n.v.e.n.i.e.n.c.e. Snip-snip for both of them would take care of it permanently.

    January 25, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Jen

      But you said that abortions aside from r-pe were due to low self esteem and being with the wrong guy.

      Both vasectomies and tubal ligations still can fail. What do you propose a married couple do if they can't afford any more kids and this happens?

      January 25, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Jen : But you said that abortions aside from r-pe were due to low self esteem and being with the wrong guy.

      Those are major causes, but not the only reasons. Perhaps I've been too specific for you.

      @Jen : Both vasectomies and tubal ligations still can fail.

      Yes, and you could win the lottery every year. While one could fail, if you both did the above, then the possiblity would be all but zero.

      @Jen : What do you propose a married couple do if they can't afford any more kids and this happens?

      Family, Friends, etc? Do you worry about dying tomorrow? Why worry about this possibility that is even less likely?

      January 25, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      L4H: You make it sound so simple but yet you have no clue. I've buried two babies. The first I was 18 and was in no way ready for a child but one night of being 18 and... I did not abort though. My good Catholic Mom stepped in. In the end he was stillborn a week after I was in a car accident. The other one was doomed sadly before she was even born. Had I of known that her time with us would have been so short and that she'd only suffer (she did) her entire life, I would have aborted. She was the happiest baby on earth but she sure as hell did not deserve the life she lived. I was Christian back then and so my thinking was based off my belief. So please don't assume that you have a clue here.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Akira

      Truth Prevails:
      I am so sorry at what you and your children have been through.
      My deepest sympathy.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • Science

      @L4H Fact in courts MONEY
      Not good
      Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For ...

      http://www.eggdonor.com/.../catholic-hospital-fetuses-people-sued-wrongf...

      14 hours ago – Catholic Hospital: Fetuses Are Not People If We Are Being Sued For Wrongful Death ... guard, filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple's ... The procedure likely would not have saved the mother, a testifying ... the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by ...

      January 25, 2013 at 7:26 am |

      January 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • S-3B Viking

      @ Akira...

      Hi, Akira. Did you ever find Applebush?

      January 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Akira: Thank you. However, just to clarify, my point in telling that was hopefully to make L4H stop and think for a minute about their stance on this.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Akira

      S-3B Viking:
      Hi. No, I haven't seen him...unless he changed his name...did he?

      January 25, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • S-3B Viking

      @ Akira....

      Not that I know of (changing name)...worried about him, though.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
    • Akira

      @S-3B Viking:
      Yes, I am too.
      I miss him.

      @Truth Prevails:
      I don't think L4H will change stance.
      The whole "blame the woman" stance is hopelessly judgmental and misogynistic.
      Thank goodness none of that can be codified into law.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Truth Prevails : I've buried two babies.

      I'm sorry for your losses. Life is not simple, nor is fairy tale. Its these trials and tribulations that help shape us into who we are.

      January 26, 2013 at 9:39 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Akira : The whole "blame the woman" stance is hopelessly judgmental and misogynistic.

      You've missed my entire point. Women DO bear a certain amount of the responsibilty, but my foundation is scripture. Scripture places the blame squarely upon the shoulders of the men. Men claimed they wanted what women have become ... and the women followed their lead. But men were just being selfish – they thought they could wallow in the mud and then marry a beautiful princess after leaving the pig behind in the pigsty. But women were desperate to be loved and followed them into the mud. With them both covered in mud, the result was that both sides distrust the other side. Neither side respected the other side of the relationship. This changed the type of relationships we find in society. Instead of an "A" type of relationship, we find a "H" type of relationship.

      In an A type of relationship, the mutual parties depend upon each other (leaning together) with a commitment to keep them together. This forms engineering's strongest 2-dimensional structure – a triangle. So, under outside pressure, the structure survives.

      In an H type of relationship, the mutual parties are standing on their own with a loose connection to keep them together. However, if a little strain is placed on that connection, it breaks easily. So, under outside pressure, the structure falls apart – breaking the pieces into two individual 'I's.

      Men have led society into the mud and now they need to lead society back OUT of the mud.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:01 am |
    • Emily

      " Neither side respected the other side of the relationship. This changed the type of relationships we find in society."

      You need to get professional counseling on what it means to have a healthy loving relationship. You're view of people is very narrow and negative. I don't know what planet you live on but all of the people in my life have healthy loving respectful relationships. It's Christians like you is the reason I left the church long ago, the negative outlook is not healthy.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Liver, you have no clue what you're talking about. Thank goodness nobody cares about your opinion.

      January 26, 2013 at 11:04 am |
  13. Live4Him

    @niknak : It is the anti fundie babble filter

    I'm starting to believe this. I KNOW that when I quoted "myweight", the filters stopped me but she was able to post it. The term was s.e.x.u.a.l.i.t.y. So, there are some filter issues going on.

    January 25, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • ???????

      Maybe the filters know the truth .

      January 25, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I use html code in my "naughty" words to get them past the filter.

      For example, in the word "sexuality" I put between the "e" and the "x" (minus the spaces). This makes the filter accept the word, but doesn't actually change the way the word appears when posted.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      oops, my code disappeared.

      When I type the word sexuality, I type (ignore the periods) s.e...x.u.a.l.i.t.y.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Okay, that didn't work either. let me try this: replace [ with

      se[b][/b]xuality

      or

      se [ b ] [ / b ] xuality

      January 25, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
    • Science

      But he knows how love does not work Ok
      Dang the secert is out. !

      January 25, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Okay, that didn't work either.

      K. I understand the HTML intent. However, I don't know which words are off-limits. Very frustrating to say the least! I spent more than 30 minutes working/posting that single comment which became many sub-comments.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I get that, I've been there.

      The problem is usually within other words. Someone around here has a list of them. Maybe we can get them to post them again. When I have trouble finding the offending words, I tend to copy the post into word and do a search on common ones like t.i.t and s.e.x and on that always hangs me up v.a.g. Also c.u.m.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I found it:

      Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
      Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
      You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
      -
      ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
      co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
      co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
      crac-ker…
      cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
      ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
      ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
      ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, sopho-more, etc.
      ho-oters…as in sho-oters
      ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
      inf-orms us…
      hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
      jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
      ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
      koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
      nip-ple
      o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
      pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
      p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
      p-orn… as in p-ornography
      pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
      que-er
      ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
      se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      sl-ut
      sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
      sn-atch
      sp-ank
      sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
      sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
      strip-per
      ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, t-itle, ent-ity, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
      va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
      wt-f....also!!!!!!!
      x.xx…
      There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).


      There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Someone around here has a list of them. Maybe we can get them to post them again.

      I would appreciate them. I try to figure out which are off limits (including cir.c.u.m.stance), but some words I just cannot figure them out. I try different words and everything else, and wind up frustrated in the end.

      BTW – I enjoy conversing with you and don't mean to offend. However, I've got to stay true to the evidence. I love people too much to tell them lies or want to see them hurt.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Romnesia

      sexuality

      January 25, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : Bad letter combinations

      MANY, MANY Thanks! There are many that I didn't know about – in fact most of them.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
    • S-3B Viking

      @ myweight...

      I wanted to thank you for your life story posted earlier. There is a common thread among many who leave Evangelical Christianity.

      Your honesty is really admirable...an honesty I don't "see" here among those claiming to follow Christ.

      Thank you for being who you are.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:03 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @L4H, I've given up on posts in frustration before. I share your pain.

      BTW – I enjoy conversing with you and don't mean to offend. However, I've got to stay true to the evidence. I love people too much to tell them lies or want to see them hurt.

      You will find I don't offend easily. I do have a few buttons you can push that don't offend me necessarily, but do rile me up a bit. But I do strive to respond with love and understanding and compassion, rather than strike out of my personal anger and issues.

      As long as discourse remains civil, I remain intrigued.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I wanted to thank you for your life story posted earlier. There is a common thread among many who leave Evangelical Christianity.

      Your honesty is really admirable...an honesty I don't "see" here among those claiming to follow Christ.

      Thank you for being who you are.

      I honestly do not know how to be any other way. Peace to you. I hope your weekend is awesome.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:13 pm |
    • S-3B Viking

      @ Myweight...

      To you as well. Have a restful and safe one.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
    • Akira

      MWIW:
      Thanks! I figured it out!
      Sex!
      I've been trying to figure that out for the longest time!!

      January 25, 2013 at 7:13 pm |
    • Akira

      After reading my post, I realized it looks as if I had just figured out sex...not what I meant, LOL!
      I meant I finally figured out how to get that word through the filter, LMAO!! Man, that post looks silly as hell!

      January 25, 2013 at 7:20 pm |
    • Chadism

      It's only sex if you're both bleeding from the eyes when you're done.

      January 25, 2013 at 7:23 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : I do have a few buttons you can push that don't offend me necessarily, but do rile me up a bit.

      I don't ever intend to rile a person, but I do want people to think things through. I try not to judge (after all, I'm one of the worst) nor tear them down. However, I DO want to draw a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad, helpful and harmful. Many people tend to do thing that harm them (usually emotionally) and do not see the connection between their actions and the consequences.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Akira : After reading my post, I realized it looks as if I had just figured out s[b][/b]ex...not what I meant,

      You sure about that?!?! 🙂 I couldn't help but laugh when I read your post! Of course, I also realized what your meant, but.... it still brought a laugh.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:12 am |
    • Robert

      "However, I DO want to draw a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad, helpful and harmful. Many people tend to do thing that harm them (usually emotionally) and do not see the connection between their actions and the consequences."

      The problem is that your definitions of right and wrong is not necessarily the right ones. That's the point I believe others are trying to get you to see. What is sad it that you believe that so many do things that harm themselves when the reality that is not the case. 3/4 of people in our society are responsible and good people.

      January 26, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • ready for coffee and casual

      s<b></b>ex

      January 26, 2013 at 10:23 am |
  14. niknak

    Oh great, cowardlylion AND Robert Brownstreak have joined the blog.
    That anti fundie filter is going to go into overdrive and probably break.

    MIght be time for me to leave, my head can't take both of them at the same time without exploding from fundie babble overload.

    January 25, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
  15. Observer

    Live4Him,

    "@myweightinwords : The biblical stance is that the rapist must marry the woman.

    No, he is put to death"

    Nonsense. If you are going to use the Bible as a source, why not read it?
    '
    '.

    January 25, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : Nonsense. If you are going to use the Bible as a source, why not read it?

      Deuteronomy 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and r.a.p.e.s her, only the man who has done this shall die.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • Observer

      Live$Him,

      Keep reading. You quit a little early.

      – Deuteronomy 22:28 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and r@pes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels (about 1¼ pounds) of silver. He MUST MARRY THE GIRL, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

      Ooops.

      Ooops. Pick and choose whatever Bible you want. So what is the ONLY TRUE Bible?

      January 25, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
  16. Live4Him

    @myweightinwords : Is your self image

    Let me ask you a question. You're walking down the beach and find something that on the beach that is worth 10 million dollars. What do you do? Do you toss it back into the ocean or keep it for a while and then toss it back or keep it and treasure it for life?

    January 25, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Live4Him

      True love is like this. When you find true love, you're never going to let it go. It bring fulfillment, divides the responsibilites, shares the joy and the sadness, when you feel too bad to get out of bed, your spouse goes to the store to get the necessary medicine.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • niknak

      It is 10 million dollars or it is something that is worth 10 million dollars?
      If is it something and not actual currency, then how would one know on the spot it was worth 10 million dollars?

      And what does this do to further you claim that god exists?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • niknak

      So true love is only worth 10 million dollars?
      Why not 11 mil? Or 9? Why 10?

      Face it lady, you bought into a huge lie. The only people that care are the scammers who take you money and return to you a myth about some magic land which you can only access once you are dead. How convienent for them.

      A mind is a terrible thing to lose, to religion......

      January 25, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
    • Live4Him

      The filters are really getting to me. I've been trying to post my response all this time

      January 25, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Live4Him

      S.e.x i.s only a p.i.e.c.e of the i.s.s.u.e. Yet, people think it is the be-all and end-all to . When you i.n.v.e.s.t in a r.e.l.a.t.i.o.n.s.h.i.p, giving your all, and then it ends – the u.l.t.i.m.a.t.e m.e.s.s.a.g.e is "You're not go.od enough".

      January 25, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Love never fails. (1Co 13:8)

      So, when a woman - let me change that for you - when a man is with 20 d.i.f.f.e.r.e.n.t w.o.m.e.n over a p.e.r.i.o.d of time, he gets r.e.j.e.c.t.e.d 20 d.i.f.f.e.r.e.n.t times (regardless who ends it). Either she tells him that he isn't good enough or he feels he made a bad decision. If he were s.m.a.r.t enough, he wouldn't be making these m.i.s.t.a.k.e.s. But, he is d.r.i.v.e.n to find love and a.c.c.e.p.t.a.n.c.e, so he tries again.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • niknak

      It is the anti fundie babble filter die4him.
      When you post fundie babble, it filters it out.
      It is not perfect, cause fundies do get babble thru from time to time, but it works pretty good, mostly.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • Live4Him

      The u.n.d.e.r.l.y.i.n.g i.s.s.u.e is that he W.A.N.T.S to f.a.i.l. Since he f.e.e.l.s that he isn't g.o.o.d e.n.o.u.g.h, he won't wait for the right woman because she'd r.e.j.e.c.t him anyway. Therefore, he continues f.e.e.d.i.n.g this n.e.g.a.t.i.v.e view of himself.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • niknak

      If it was a xtian fundie who kept getting rejected, he would do what all xtian fundies do, and get his gun and shoot her in the head.
      Nothing proves a xtian's love for jeebus then using his/her gun to kill another living thing.

      Hope that clears it up for you.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • Jen

      Live, I know this is in the wrong spot but I see you answered that most abortions are done out of convenience. So are you saying that women that are married that have abortions don't fall in this category? What category do they fall under?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Let me ask you a question. You're walking down the beach and find something that on the beach that is worth 10 million dollars. What do you do? Do you toss it back into the ocean or keep it for a while and then toss it back or keep it and treasure it for life?

      Depends on what it is. My first reaction is probably going to be to try to see if it belongs to someone, if it's say a briefcase or bag filled with money or something like that.

      If it's something natural that some crazy person is willing to pay ten million dollars for, I'd probably sell it and use the money to get out of debt and help others.

      What has that got to do with my self image?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • Observer

      myweightinwords,

      Did you notice that the Christian didn't offer the option of doing what you and I would do and that is to try to find the owner?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      True love is like this. When you find true love, you're never going to let it go. It bring fulfillment, divides the responsibilites, shares the joy and the sadness, when you feel too bad to get out of bed, your spouse goes to the store to get the necessary medicine.

      You are talking about a completely different kind of love than I am.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      S.e.x i.s only a p.i.e.c.e of the i.s.s.u.e. Yet, people think it is the be-all and end-all to . When you i.n.v.e.s.t in a r.e.l.a.t.i.o.n.s.h.i.p, giving your all, and then it ends – the u.l.t.i.m.a.t.e m.e.s.s.a.g.e is "You're not go.od enough".

      When did we jump from talking about loving yourself and how that liberates you to love others to talking about a very specific type of love? When did anyone make it about sex?

      If, when a relationship ends, your only take away from it is that you weren't good enough, then what you really need is a good counselor. And, it is also very clear that you have no love for yourself. Your attention isn't where it needs to be and you will never find happiness.

      My last relationship dissolved a few years ago. It wasn't all that traumatic. We both knew our time together was at an end and we both decided that the time to end it was before we couldn't be friends any more. It had nothing to do with one or the other not being good enough. It had to do with the changes in our lives and the different directions we want to go in.

      I loved her very much, and I still do.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : What has that got to do with my self image?

      You need to link all my posts together. I had trouble with the filter and had to break it apart.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:05 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      So, when a woman – let me change that for you – when a man is with 20 d.i.f.f.e.r.e.n.t w.o.m.e.n over a p.e.r.i.o.d of time, he gets r.e.j.e.c.t.e.d 20 d.i.f.f.e.r.e.n.t times (regardless who ends it). Either she tells him that he isn't good enough or he feels he made a bad decision. If he were s.m.a.r.t enough, he wouldn't be making these m.i.s.t.a.k.e.s. But, he is d.r.i.v.e.n to find love and a.c.c.e.p.t.a.n.c.e, so he tries again.

      You assume that giving someone love is a mistake. The problem isn't the number of people, the problem is expectations and it usually lies with honesty and once again the ability to love yourself enough to love another unconditionally.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      The u.n.d.e.r.l.y.i.n.g i.s.s.u.e is that he W.A.N.T.S to f.a.i.l. Since he f.e.e.l.s that he isn't g.o.o.d e.n.o.u.g.h, he won't wait for the right woman because she'd r.e.j.e.c.t him anyway. Therefore, he continues f.e.e.d.i.n.g this n.e.g.a.t.i.v.e view of himself.

      You're starting to get my point, but you're still addressing a very, very small subset.

      Until you learn to love yourself, to see yourself as the amazing potential that you are, you can not love another.

      Once you do learn, you can not help but love everyone. It changes everything, all of your relationships. It makes them all more intimate, more expressive, and the conflicts that divide others can be dealt with easily.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Observer,

      Did you notice that the Christian didn't offer the option of doing what you and I would do and that is to try to find the owner?

      It comes from any of a number causes I think. There's the "write what you know" frame of thought, so he offers the options that would occur to him in the scenario. But there's also a control issue, wherein it's pre-determined (even if the speaker is unaware of it) that these are the only options that the person being asked would respond with.

      Live4Him has shown repeatedly that he thinks that starting with a flawed premise will bring him to proof.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @myweightinwords : You assume that giving someone love is a mistake.

      You're not giving love without commitment. You're giving pleasure. Yours AND theirs. True love implies commitment. If you REALLY cared more about THEM than your pleasure, you would abstain so that you don't undermine their self image.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      You need to link all my posts together. I had trouble with the filter and had to break it apart.

      I have read them all. I still don't see what this has to do with my self image.

      What is it you think my self image is?

      January 25, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Thoughts

      "Once you do learn, you can not help but love everyone. It changes everything, all of your relationships. It makes them all more intimate, more expressive, and the conflicts that divide others can be dealt with easily."

      I don't think L4H has been able to reach this point yet, therefore they can't understand it. I agree it does change everything.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      You're not giving love without commitment. You're giving pleasure. Yours AND theirs. True love implies commitment. If you REALLY cared more about THEM than your pleasure, you would abstain so that you don't undermine their self image.

      Now which one of us is stuck on sex? How can you judge a relationship you are not a part of? True unconditional love implies no more commitment than to love. Nothing more. I think you are confusing real love with romantic love. The two are not the same.

      A "relationship" does not necessarily mean sex, but it might. A "relationship" does not necessarily imply romantic love, but it might. In romantic love there is merely an added component to the relationship, an emotional intimacy that requires vulnerability and the extra work of carrying a part of another person inside of you.

      It doesn't require commitment either, though in our society it is an expectation of romantic love and I think it is a healthy component of a romantic relationship to make a commitment of some kind, though I think "forever" is unrealistic.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Jeff

      "You're not giving love without commitment. You're giving pleasure. Yours AND theirs. True love implies commitment. If you REALLY cared more about THEM than your pleasure, you would abstain so that you don't undermine their self image."

      Undermine their self image? Two people who love and respect each other that have sex with each other doesn't undermine their image. Dude you really have some serious self esteem issues.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @Thoughts,

      I don't think L4H has been able to reach this point yet, therefore they can't understand it. I agree it does change everything.

      It's an amazing thing. I can only hope one day all can experience it.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Akira

      This is what I get from L4H's posts:
      Abstain from s.ex unless you are married.
      Period.
      It is not a realistic expectation, but this is what I get from it.
      And that's perfectly acceptable...to Live4Him.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
  17. My Dog is a jealous Dog

    Are you really that stupid?

    --
    But we're not talking about a single chain, but EVERY chain.

    1) Specie A becomes A and B. (2 species)
    2) Specie A becomes A and A1, while specie B becomes B and B1 (4 species)
    3) Specie A becomes A and A2, while A1 becomes A1 and A1a, while B becomes B and B2, while B1 becomes B1 and B1a (8 species).

    --

    So a wolf became a dog1 and a dog2?
    Every time that a new species has a speciation event – so does the parent species?
    If this were true, there would be billions of different turtle species.

    Each event creates a single new species – not two. There is only one chain.

    Are you so arrogant that you can't admit a logical mistake? Your argument gets more ridiculous the more you try to support it.

    January 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : So a wolf became a dog1 and a dog2?

      Reading comprehension issues? My statement was Specie A becomes A and B, so the original specie is still there. Second, a wolf and a dog are the same specie.

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : Every time that a new species has a speciation event – so does the parent species?

      Read the part on Law of Averages.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      Speciation events are independent of one another. The law of averages has nothing to do with this.

      A speciation event adds one to the total number of species, but extinction subtracts one.

      Species A evolves into B, B evolves into C (and A remains A), C evolves into D (A is now extinct, and B remains B), D evolves into E (perhaps B evolves into B2, but C goes extinct), ... and so on.

      The speciation events are independent of each other (as is extinction) – there is no doubling, because the evolution of one species is independent of all others including ancestor species.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : Speciation events are independent of one another. The law of averages has nothing to do with this.

      Sigh... Let me spell it out simply for you. Since these are random events, the law of averages shows that for each chain, there will be the same approximate number of speciation events. So, while some have 1000, others will have 999 and yet others will have 1001. If these were not random events, then this law would not apply.

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : A speciation event adds one to the total number of species, but extinction subtracts one.

      Granted, but this doesn't materially impact the conclusion. Especially given that we are talking about the evolution of the eye and not modern man. For modern man, the events would be above 100,000 – which is so l.a.r.g.e that most PCs cannot handle it.

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : (A is now extinct, and B remains B)

      Sigh... You're making a mistake. Just because A became extinct doesn't mean that the fossil evidence from when it was on the earth disappears. All we're concerned about is the fossil evidence, not if they exist today.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      Your argument (and math) depends on two assumptions:

      1) Species are immortal and continue to evolve. (We know that extinction has occurred, and we also have "living fossils")
      2) Evolution takes place in lockstep unison with all species evolving at the same rate. (We know and can see that bacteria evolve quite a bit faster than vertebrates, and once an organism has adapted to its environment sufficiently, evolutionary pressure is lessened – "living fossils")

      Both of these assumptions are wrong and you have to admit this.

      Your argument is mathematically equivalent to saying that every offspring is a new species, all creatures are immortal, and that all organisms reproduce once a year on Christmas. Counting species in your formula is the same as the population growth in my example. I am a programmer, so I will put it in those terms – you are stating that a linked list is equivalent to a binary tree.

      If I state that the average lifespan of a species is 2 million years, and the average speciation rate is once every 1.5 million years, then each species can only evolve once in its lifespan, a chain of 1000 transitions will only have 1000 species and at most only two species will be alive at any time. Your formula is meant to be simplistic and "powerful", but your understanding of really large numbers is what is actually what is holding you back from accepting evolution as being true. When you understand the vast number of possible chemical reactions per liter per second and the truly large number of attempts (coin flips) that really entails – you will find that the "Law of Averages" and statistics are not on your side. Try this sometime – the next time you are in a room of 30 or so people you will find the the probability that two of those people have the same birthday is about 50%.

      I wonder where you got this tidbit of "information". This is one of the most outrageous arguments I have seen, and I am curious if this is your own concoction, or if it is something you got from another source. If this is your own argument, I suggest that you learn a little more math before you try to use it to make a point. Math, in contrast to metaphysics, does have "truth", "proof", and "infinity".

      January 25, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : Speciation events are independent of one another. The law of averages has nothing to do with this.

      Sigh... Let me spell it out simply for you. Since these are random events, the law of averages shows that for each chain, there will be the same approximate number of speciation events. So, while some have 1000, others will have 999 and yet others will have 1001. If these were not random events, then this law would not apply.

      ****
      This is patently false at least as far as evolution is concerned. It is not truly random, it is pressure from the environment that drives evolution, it just may seem random. The concept of punctuated equilibrium shows that evolution does not progress randomly.
      ****

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : A speciation event adds one to the total number of species, but extinction subtracts one.

      Granted, but this doesn't materially impact the conclusion. Especially given that we are talking about the evolution of the eye and not modern man. For modern man, the events would be above 100,000 – which is so l.a.r.g.e that most PCs cannot handle it.

      ****
      This is the crux of your problem – it certainly does impact your conclusion. You are assuming that nothing goes extinct in your calculation – these just keep on evolving and producing "new" species at each step in your equation.
      ****

      @My Dog is a jealous Dog : (A is now extinct, and B remains B)

      Sigh... You're making a mistake. Just because A became extinct doesn't mean that the fossil evidence from when it was on the earth disappears. All we're concerned about is the fossil evidence, not if they exist today.
      ****
      No – but it does mean that it stops evolving and adding to your count
      ****

      If you don't get it after this, I am just giving up! You need to take some remedial math. I hope this is your own idea and that it spreads no farther than today's blog – because it is remarkably stupid. You are saying that because of your flawed calculation we should see fossil evidence of an astronomical number of species – you are simply wrong.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
  18. Truth Prevails :-)

    As usual the republicans are spinning their fantasies. Arizona Republicans Propose Bill That Would Not Allow Atheists To Graduate High School and would require students to take loyalty oaths. More on this can be found at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/01/25/arizona-republicans-propose-bill-that-would-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/

    Now we all know this won't go through and that it strictly violates the Constitution.

    The people proposing this bill should not be allowed to serve in public office.

    January 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • meifumado

      Could you post their names and such so we can write them =)

      January 25, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Observer

      “We must stop being the stupid party.” “We must stop looking backward.” “We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.” – Republican Bobby Jindal.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • niknak

      Arizona is really pretty, what happend to the people?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Directly from the article: This bill is the work of Representatives Bob Thorpe, Sonny Borrelli, Carl Seel, T.J. Shope, Jeff Dial, David Livingston, Chester Crandell, and Steve Smith.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • JWT

      I know politicians propose a lot of stupid things but that one is beyond even stupid.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
  19. Live4Him

    @My Dog is a jealous Dog : My point is that in a speciation event, one species becomes two. But it is not 2 new species, only one.

    Yes, and that's what the math revealed as well (2,4,8,16, etc).

    ------

    @My Dog is a jealous Dog : The other is the original parent species. So the number of new species in a chain of 1000 speciation events is not 2^1000, but simply 1000.

    But we're not talking about a single chain, but EVERY chain.

    1) Specie A becomes A and B. (2 species)
    2) Specie A becomes A and A1, while specie B becomes B and B1 (4 species)
    3) Specie A becomes A and A2, while A1 becomes A1 and A1a, while B becomes B and B2, while B1 becomes B1 and B1a (8 species).

    ------

    @My Dog is a jealous Dog : L4H's math is doing multiplication where addition is the correct operation. This is an error in his mathematics

    How do you figure that addition is the correct operation in a doubling process? I've shown above that it isn't addition and that the power is the correct formula.

    January 25, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Live4Him

      For others who may have missed my original post:

      EVOLUTION IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

      Okay, we've discussed 1) The Case for Christianity, and 2) Dino Soft Tissue for some time now, so lets move on to a new topic. But first, lets get some key definitions in place before we start.

      1) Species: According to evolution, a specie is a kind of life that can reproduce its own kind.
      2) Transitional specie: According to evolution, a specie that is between two other species (i.e. A evolved into B, which evolved into C – so B is a transitional specie). Since, evolution holds that all species are capable of evolving, this means that all species, except the initial specie, are transitional species. For this discussion, I'll presume specie and transitional specie as the same.
      3) Speciation event: According to evolution, this is the process whereby a single species becomes two distinct species. It usually occurs over a period of time, but may be a cataclysmic event also.
      4) Law of Averages: a statistical principle that shows a more or less predictable ratio between the number of random trials of an event and its occurrences.
      5) Current number of identified species: approximately 1.9 million species. Some scientists predict this number may go as high as 50 million species eventually.

      Speciation events are presumed to be a random occurrence via the trial of producing offspring. When given sufficient time, two different species will have the same number of speciation events, albeit not necessarily at the same time. Applying this concept allows us to utilize mathematical concepts to determine the number of species that have lived on the earth over its history.

      The number 2 raised by a power will double the number X times. For example, 2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8, and 2^4 = 16. So, if we know the number of speciation events that occurred over evolution's history, we could calculate the number of species that have lived on the earth. Unfortunately, no evolutionist has ever ventured a guess at the number of speciation events between a modern specie and the first specie. However, Richard Dawkins has ventured an estimate on the number of speciation events that occurred to develop the modern eye. He postulated a number between 1,000 and 100,000 speciation events to develop the modern eye.

      For the sake of this discussion, I'll presume that there were 1,003 speciation events to develop the modern eye. This would mean that there should be one centillion (i.e. 1E303) transitional species. Not all species can leave fossil evidence, but if we presume that only a millionth of them would we would still have 1E297 transitional specie fossils.

      Since the upper limit of identified species is estimated to be 50 million (i.e. 50E6), then it becomes obvious that evolution is mathematically impossible since evolution predicts almost 1 centillion species in the development of the eye alone!

      January 25, 2013 at 3:31 pm |
    • niknak

      Yawn.....
      Still clutching at straws I see Die4him.
      Evolution is taught all around the world, and here too for a reason, it is how all the species arose.
      Sorry that it contradicts you stone age myth.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • Free Nuts

      Nut Free

      January 25, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • Science

      Sorry L4 H courts say this period !!!

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTZ5AYzs8o&w=640&h=360]

      Evolution wins and works. Fact !!!

      January 25, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @niknak : it is how all the species arose

      So your faith tells you. Where's the proof?

      January 25, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Science : Evolution wins and works. Fact !!!

      So where are the 1 centillion species?

      January 25, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      You have absolutely no concept of evolution.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @hawaiiguest : You have absolutely no concept of evolution.

      You believe this so it must be true!

      January 25, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Science

      L4H
      If that is what you think you need to have money and take it up with the court it has lost in a court of law period !!!
      Plus page 1 of this thread

      Remember no prayer in public schools in US can't teach creation in public schools in US
      Peace

      January 25, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Live4Him: I have followed your posts but I don't understand your intended message. Are your posts intended to provide verifiable evidence that conflicts with the current theory of evolution?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • niknak

      The fact is in the fossil record, in Mit DNA, in modern medicine, in the death of stars, paleotology, and in every new species we disover that has lived.
      Evolution is the most challenged theory ever put forth by men. And every time it has been proven to be correct.

      But yeah, we should throw it out because your stone age magic book of spells says otherwise.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • Science

      @L4H pretty soon they will be as smart as you Pease

      Apps for Apes: Smithsonian Orangutans using iPads for Enrichment

      Published on Jan 11, 2013

      The Smithsonian's National Zoo is participating in the Apps4Apes program. The Apps4Apes program is an Orangutan Outreach initiative, designed to further enrich the quality of lives for primates in zoos. The animals are allowed to engage with basic apps for added mental stimulation and entertainment.

      Video produced by Elliott Fabrizio, Smithsonian's National Zoo Office of Communications.

      Special thanks to Orangutan Outreach.

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsSIKj5ULp4&w=640&h=360]

      Category

      Pets & Animals

      January 25, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Science

      Oops god dame thumb peace not pease

      January 25, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      Kind of how you believe in god, therefore it must be true.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
    • meifumado

      "To argue with a creationist is like an argument between a reproductive scientist and someone who believes in the stork theory"

      These people just wont listen to the truth, it hurts their brain.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • My Dog is a jealous Dog

      Here is where you are wrong.

      Species A becomes Species B (2 total)
      Species B becomes Species C (Species B has an event – because B has an event does not mean that A does also) – (3 total)
      ... and so on ....

      There is only one chain of species because a speciation event happens to an individual species and not all of the other species back down the evolutionary tree. If the dog were to evolve into a new species, that does not mean that wolves and foxes and every other canine species also evolve into a new species.

      I hope I have made this clear to you, and I hope that you can recognize your mistake and admit it. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have ever heard,

      January 25, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Live4him, you assume that every time a speciation event occurs, both new species, will become 2 new species 100% of the time, in your case for 1003 times in row. That doesn't account for new species that go extinct before they can have a speciation event.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • meifumado

      @ Live4Him
      Are you a flat earther as well?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      "I'll presume that there were 1,003 speciation events to develop the modern eye."

      A change in one phenotype is not speciation, ESPECIALLY when NO examination of the species problem is presented in your post.

      This is just another failed attempt at creationist sophistry designed to distract from the elephant in the room: WHERE IS THE CREATIONIST HYPOTHESIS FOR THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE?

      January 25, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      It appears the formula l4h is using is:

      #species = 1*10^[#speciation events]

      It would be more accurately represented as:

      #species = 2(#speciation events) + 2(#speciation events)(%species that have new speciation event) + 1

      January 25, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @lunchbreaker : you assume that every time a speciation event occurs, both new species, will become 2 new species 100% of the time

      Read the part on Law of Averages again.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @lunchbreaker : It appears the formula l4h is using is: #species = 1*10^[#speciation events]

      The Excel formula is : =POWER(2,1003)
      Where 2 is the number of species that would result in a division
      AND 1003 is the number of speciation events.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      So 1 species becomes 2. 1 never becomes 2 more. the other becomes 2 more. At this point you have only 2 total species in existance not 2*2. If you continue the trend into the futre, you have to account for species that do not become 2 more.

      January 25, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Eric G : I have followed your posts but I don't understand your intended message. Are your posts intended to provide verifiable evidence that conflicts with the current theory of evolution?

      Yes. There are only 2 million species known today. If we presume that the max theorized (i.e. 50 million) were identified, this would mean that there are only 26 speciation events between modern man and first life. These 26 links should be easy to identify. However, using the 1003 presumed links for the evolution of the eye alone, it would yield 1 centillion species. If only a millionth of them survived, we should have 1-E297 species (i.e. 1 followed by 297 zeros).

      January 25, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
  20. Live4Him

    @myweightinwords : [re: You don't need an education] Tell me that you're saying this JUST to pull my strings

    I want you to think. How much of an education did women have 1,000 years ago? Almost none. Did they need to destroy their children? No. So, what has changed? In those days, men were expected to take care of their resp.on.si.bili.ties.

    January 25, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Test: responsibilities

      January 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      I want you to think. How much of an education did women have 1,000 years ago? Almost none. Did they need to destroy their children? No. So, what has changed? In those days, men were expected to take care of their resp.on.si.bili.ties.

      Do you honestly believe that women 1000 years ago didn't have abortions? There have always been ways to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

      What has changed in the last 1000 years? Women are no longer property for one thing. Arranged marriage. Selling your daughters. World population. Life expectancy. The average age of marriage. The dumbing down of our children. The failure of our education system.

      The entire world has changed in the last 1000 years and going backwards is not an option. Saying that a man needs to "take care of his woman" is not going to fix anything. Women don't need to be taken care of. They need to be respected.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • NotASoldierOfStupidity

      Guess what, Gullible4Him – we're not going back in time. Those days are ovaaah!

      snappity snap!

      January 25, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • TANK!!!!

      Build a time machine and travel back to the 10th Century then. And feel free to get caught up in any of the Crusades when you get arrive.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • Free Nuts

      Nuts Free

      January 25, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • Akira

      As long as there have been pregnancies, there have been ways to terminate one.
      The freaking Dark Ages are nothing to aspire to.
      How absurd.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • niknak

      If one is a fundie, or a republican for that matter, back is all they know.
      The fundies would love to go back to the dark ages, just like the repubs want to go back to the 1950s.

      Sorry fundie repubs, we ain't going back, we are going forward.
      Time to get used to a less religious, less xtian and less lily white America.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:33 pm |
    • Live4Him

      myweightinwords : There have always been ways to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy

      Yes, but they were much fewer then.

      myweightinwords : Women don't need to be taken care of. They need to be respected.

      EVERYONE needs to be taken care of. No one can do it all by him/herself. A good example is a triangle – where one person is one leg and the other person is the other leg and the link beween them is the marriage. This is the strongest 2-dimensional object in engineering.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Akira : As long as there have been pregnancies, there have been ways to terminate one.

      Especially after birth. Technology has allowed us to murder 9 months earlier now. Isn't it great! Not at all.

      January 25, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Yes, but they were much fewer then.

      So were people. And pregnancies. As long as women have been able to get pregnant there have been abortions.

      EVERYONE needs to be taken care of. No one can do it all by him/herself. A good example is a triangle – where one person is one leg and the other person is the other leg and the link beween them is the marriage. This is the strongest 2-dimensional object in engineering.

      Do you believe that every person ever born should be married?

      Do you believe that anyone who isn't married isn't complete?

      Do you believe that anyone who isn't married is somehow less than everyone else that is married?

      January 25, 2013 at 3:56 pm |
    • Akira

      L4H: "Especially after birth. Technology has allowed us to murder 9 months earlier now. Isn’t it great!"
      So I take it you are not a fan of technology, either?

      Ma'am, you can be opposed to whatever you want; abortion is legal, and will continue to remain that way.

      I will have to assume that is also God's plan; that "free will" thing and all.

      I also find it somewhat amusing that the RCC has taken a different stance in Colorado on exactly when a fetus is a person; plainly contradicting its own (and many others) belief when life starts...would you care to address that?
      It appears that those who espouse God's laws over Man's laws would have trouble reconciling with this one.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • Akira

      Yes, but they were much fewer then.

      So were people. And pregnancies. As long as women have been able to get pregnant there have been abortions.

      Thank you, MWIW; this was going to be my next post.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      It is better to stay single unless you can’t contain your desire then it is better to be married.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fbUiNQ0Buk&w=640&h=360]
      The “Hubble deep field image” is a point in space whereby a timed image was taken showing that there is hundreds of galaxies in an area of space once thought to be void. Science tells us that the light emitted by the galactic cloisters took 13 or so billion years to reach us giving science a ‘theory’ of the cosmological age of our viewable universe. The problem of aging seems to be fundamentally flawed because the ages of these cloistered galaxies are not taken into considerations.

      January 25, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fbUiNQ0Buk&w=640&h=360]

      January 25, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      @Robert Brown
      It is better to stay single unless you can’t contain your desire then it is better to be married.

      Paul's opinion on my sex life is not important to me, since I don't consider him any sort of authority on my life.

      January 25, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • S-3B Viking

      @ Akira...

      I'm doubtful that Paul would have agreed to having his epistles voted upon to become sacred scripture. Just as doubtful that C.S. Lewis would allow his writings to be considered...(if the Christian cannon was still accepting applications...)

      January 25, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
1 2 3
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.