home
RSS
February 27th, 2013
11:35 AM ET

Fill in the blank: Jesus is____

(CNN)– Justin Bieber's pastor, Judah Smith, says his book 'Jesus Is" challenges people to have a discussion about who Jesus was.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Jesus

soundoff (2,732 Responses)
  1. Terry

    Mithra is the way, the truth, and the light.

    February 27, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
  2. Terry

    Mithra was formed within Anahita, by the Holy Spirit, so Mithra is God's son. Mithra taught others, healed them, and was later judged for being who he is, crucified, died, buried, and raised again the 3rd day, so others that believe him could be forgiven of their sins. Mithra later ascended to heaven, and then sent the Holy Spirit to help his followers get the word out

    February 27, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • Hal 9001

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

      "It is sometimes said that the birth of Mithras was a virgin birth, like that of Jesus.

      But no ancient source gives such a birth myth for Mithras. In Mithraic Studies it is stated that Mithras was born as an adult from solid rock...."

      the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent true statements is: "EPIC FAIL". I see that you repeat these falsehoods with high frequency. Perhaps the following book can help you:

      I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...

      February 27, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      anahita was worshiped as gods by hindus ignorants of hindu pagan Persia and Egypt, home land of hindu Mithra sim racist savior ism, religion of hindu crook Romans. renamed as Christianity to hind fool humanity.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • ?

      The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      Hal 9001 I think we can all agree that there is as much "evidence" for the virgin birth of Jesus as there is for Mithra.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • .

      Mainstream scholarship speaks of at least three Mithras: Mitra, the Vedic god; Mithra, the Persian deity; and Mithras, the Greco-Roman mysteries The Armenian Empire under Tigranes the Great, fl. 95 to 66 BCE; Aivazovskyicon. However, the Persian Mithra apparently developed differently in various places, such as in Armenia, where there appeared to be emphasis on characteristics not overtly present in Roman Mithraism but found as motifs within Christianity, including the Virgin Mother Goddess. This Armenian Mithraism is evidently a continuity of the Mithraism of Asia Minor and the Near East. This development of gods taking on different forms, shapes, colors, ethnicities and other attributes according to location, era and so on is not only quite common but also the norm. Thus, we have hundreds of gods and goddesses who are in many ways interchangeable but who have adopted various differences based on geographical and environmental factors.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Hal 9001

      Hey "?"

      Mithras was born as an adult from solid rock. Not a virgin. Are you saying that Mary is the same a a piece of solid rock in a cave?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Wait...

      As the "rock-born," Mithras was called "Theos ek Petras," or the "God from the Rock."

      Indeed, it may be that the reason of the Vatican hill at Rome being regarded as sacred to Peter, the Christian "Rock," was that it was already sacred to Mithra, for Mithraic remains have been found there.

      Mithras was "the rock," or Peter, and was also "double-faced," like Janus the keyholder, likewise a prototype for the "apostle" Peter. Hence, when Jesus is made to say (in the apparent interpolation at Matthew 16:12) that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to "Peter" and that the Church is to be built upon "Peter," as a representative of Rome, he is usurping the authority of Mithraism, which was precisely headquartered on what became Vatican Hill.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • ?

      The Virgin Mother Anahita

      Unlike various other rock- or cave-born gods, Mithra is not depicted in the Roman cultus as having been given birth by a mortal woman or a goddess; hence, it is claimed that he was not "born of a virgin." However, a number of writers over the centuries have asserted otherwise, including several modern Persian and Armenian scholars who are apparently reflecting an ancient tradition from Near Eastern Mithraism.

      "The worship of Mithra and Anahita, the virgin mother of Mithra, was well-known in the Achaemenian period."

      February 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • Bob

      That's not hal 9001 (notice uppercase H); lol

      February 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Vanhalin

      It's the same troll that steals other peoples handles to post their nonsense.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
  3. Helen Wheels

    Jesus is you pretending your internal dialog and your feelings are god.

    February 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
  4. John

    Jesus was formed within Mary, by the Holy Spirit, so Jesus is God's son. Jesus taught others, healed them, and was later judged for being who he is, crucified, died, buried, and raised again the 3rd day he was in the hands of sinful men, so others that believe him could be forgiven of their sins. Jesus later ascended to heaven, and then sent the Holy Spirit to help his followers get the word out... and billions of people later that believe him, here we are being persecuted for saying he did what God sent him to do.

    February 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      John, how do you KNOW that any of that is true? Is is POSSIBLE that any of it is made up?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
    • Janey Jones

      To John, "persecuted" means people state an opinion other than his.

      You aren't persecuted, you fop. Not even close. I know you love that Christian persecution complex, but you are fraudulently playing the victim. Poor you.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      HINDUISM, CHRISTIANITY, A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY WAS IMPOSED ON HUMANITY BY FORCE, NOT AS YOU HIND, LIE TO MAKE HINDU LAIR FOLLOWERS OF HINDU MITHRA ISM, RACIST SAVIOR ISM VICTIM..

      February 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • John

      JQ, the Holy Spirit.

      JJ, the definition of persection: a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate a people because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutions of Christians by the Romans.

      Satan goes after those that believe Jesus in an attempt to have them lose their faith by any means possible. You can see examples of such all through this blog.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      John we are going in circles, how do you that the Holy Spirit is true?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      OR...the fictional character summarized by John .

      February 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
    • John

      JG, the Holy Spirit is the power of God, being of God, it would have to be the truth.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      John, You do know that the premise that God is real is still not settled truth? If it were a "truth" there would be no reason to debate it. If you say that God is "real, "in my mind" but not in the real physical universe no one can argue that. But to say that God exist in the real physical universe (like people, horses, planets, stars and such) you Need to be able to prove that like we can prove the existence of people, horses, planets, stars and such, don't you think? And if you can't prove it, then maybe you should rethink the premise.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • John

      JQ, God's word proves he is the truth, that he is God. The Holy Spirit confirms Jesus was sent by God.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Doobs

      God's word proves he is the truth, that he is God.

      The bible is true because it says so in the bible. LOL!

      February 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'John' is an instance of the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

      http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      February 27, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • John

      FS, prove to me that math is correct, without using math. If you do not, that is circular reasoning, and math is false.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'John' is an instance of a False Analogy and presents a Straw Man argument.

      http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      February 27, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • Doan

      Post by John is a fallacy, and that isn't surprising because John is A STUPID MORON.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • John

      FS,. your own reasoning and failure to prove math being true, shows why the path you follow will not bring you to God.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • Janey Jones

      Poor persecuted John. All that, uh, well, okay, he's not at all persecuted, but it sounds good so he likes to say it.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'John' is a non sequitur and contains ad hominem elements.

      http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      February 27, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • o

      Satan lies when asked to prove the truth

      February 27, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Math is proved by application. That math is internally consistent and produced precise and predictable results makes it a valid discipline. God belief and christianity can make none of those claims.

      February 27, 2013 at 8:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I swear, John HAS to be a poe.

      February 27, 2013 at 8:39 pm |
  5. Arnie Schwarz

    Justin Bieber's pastor? CNN is pimping an airhead book by Justin Beiber's pastor? The guy looks like a total closet case.

    I wonder if that's Douglas?

    February 27, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
  6. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    As the follower of Jesus, lovely my great great great grand mother danced through the ashes of filthy Al-Madinah she sprinkled crap on all the paths Muhammad had walked in his last days on earth. The new graffiti were the signs of the swine that Mohammad followed the lovely young boys and girls on the streets of Al-Madinah. These new signs were added to the Noble Qur'an because you yourself told Thin Allah it must be so.

    Ameen

    February 27, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      HINDU SECULAR ISM, FILTHY SELF CENTER ISM, BITC HING BY A HINDU SECULAR, FILTHY SECULAR, BIT CHING DOG FROM HINDERED GUTTER OF HINDUISM SECULAR ISM, BIT CHING ISM INDIA.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
  7. Frankie Goes To Winnemucca

    Jesus is myth.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
  8. GODLESS GOD

    JESUS WAS JESUS UNTIL HE WAS CRUCIFIED

    February 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      IT IS NOT CRUCIFIXION BUT CRUCIFICTION , HINDU SCRIPTED HINDU FICTION TO HIND FOOL HUMANITY INTO HINDU GENTILE ISM, SLAVERY. HANDY WORK OF HINDU SECULAR S, FILTHY BIT CHES.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • GODLESS GOD

      MALIGN SOMEONE'S RELIGION IS NOT GOING TO MAKE YOUR MOHAMMAD ANY BETTER PERSON, TALK ABOUT YOUR MAN TURNED GOD MR. DAR.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Hinduism, denial of truth is not some thing of a holy nature, but hinduism criminality, borne out of hindu secular ism, filthy self center ism, secularism, otherwise known a hindrance to truth absolute by a hindu denier of truth absolute. NOT OF HUMAN, BUT OF HINDU SECULAR FILTHY SELF CENTERED ANIMALS.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
    • GODLESS GOD

      MAKE A GOOD USE OF YOUR ENERGY, SPEND IT ON PRAISING MOHAMMAD, NOT FINDING FAULTS WITH OTHERS,

      February 27, 2013 at 4:13 pm |
  9. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    Letter B, means to be in control of, vowel I means to be subordinated to, letter T, means totality of a limit, Ch is hinduism corruption of She, meaning, formed, letter N means, established, a noun, Letter G means COLLECTED Word BI-TC-HI-NG, MEANS , TO BE SELF CENTERED, OR A KENJER. NO NEED TO BE A HINDU, A BI-TCH , KEEP YOUR HINDU HINDUISM, FILTHY BI–TCHI–NG FOR YOUR SELF, HINDU FILTHY DOG, SECULAR, SELF CENTERED FROM HINDERED GUTTER OF HINDUISM, BIT-CHING ism, SECULAR ISM INDIA.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • GODLESS GOD

      MOHAMMAD WAS A BIG TIME MALE GOAT BANGER, BUT HIS TRADITION IS STILL CONTINUED ALIVE AND WELL AMONG CONSERVATIVE MOSELMS, ARE YOU CONSERVATIVE MR. DAR?

      February 27, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      HINDUISM SECULAR ISM, SELF CENTER ISM, BI TCHIN G OF A HINDU KENJER FROM HINDERED GUTTER OF HINDUISM KENJER ISM INDIA KEEP ON SPEWING YOUR HINDU SECULAR ISM, BI TICHING. HINDU SECULAR, FILTHY DOG.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
  10. Chad

    Jesus is Lord and Savior!

    February 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      To those who live in the virtual world of the bible.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • Chad

      How do you know the bible isnt real?

      February 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      And now Chad, being the coward he is, now starts a new thread to avoid addressing anything in the other threads he's on. Poor, pathetic little zealot.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
    • ME II

      He saves us from what?
      his wrath?
      his absence?

      That doesn't sound like a healthy relationship.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Someone asks if the bible (the Bible of Christians, I'm sure) is real. In what sense?

      February 27, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
    • Dahc

      Jesus is delusion

      February 27, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      how do you know that the bhagavad gita isn't real, chad?

      February 27, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • Harvey Rabbit

      Get ready for the circular answer, Sam

      February 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
    • Science

      Hey Chad

      Jesus is were your soul is, on bottom of your shoe.

      Peace

      February 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, how do you know the bible is real?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:01 pm |
    • Harvey Rabbit

      Get ready for the circular answer, Ace

      February 27, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Chad

      so here's the thing, Christians have a reason for dismissing all other gods.
      That reason is that the God of Israel is real, and He says there are no other gods.

      Now, you can claim that our reason isnt real, but you cant claim we dont have a reason.

      What I dont get is this: what reason does the atheist have for rejecting the God of Israel being real?
      The reason given is always the same, "there are no gods, so the God of Israel isnt real"

      but, that logic is utterly circular, and begs the question (in that the the premise directly entails the conclusion).

      February 27, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • Harvey Rabbit

      I told you so.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
    • Science

      Looks like Chad needs to be saved by jesus, here on this forum.

      Poke

      Peace

      February 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
    • Chad

      right, plus a great deal of avoidance strategies..

      none of you have any reason for rejecting the God of Israel?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I mentioned network security as somewhat analogous:

      First, for every god reject its claim to reality

      Add back gods for which there is sufficient evidence that they are real

      February 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Arvn Huac

      Pure straw man, Chad. The reason they say there is nog god is that there is absolutely no evidence.

      Nice true to play flip-flop and idiotically accuses others of circular logic as you yourself use circular logic, but of course you had to lie to pound the round peg into the square hole.

      You really are dishonest, Chad. How old are you? I would guess mid-teens. You certainly have no education in the science you think you are such a master of. You certainly have no more than a high school diploma, if that.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • ?

      none of you have any reason for rejecting Mithra?

      none of you have any reason for rejecting Zeus?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Chad

      "First, for every god reject its claim to reality"

      right, I already addressed that: The reason given is always the same, "there are no gods, so the God of Israel isnt real"

      but, that logic is utterly circular, and begs the question (in that the the premise directly entails the conclusion).

      So, let me amend my earlier question, does any of you have any non-fallacious reasons for rejecting the God of Israel?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
    • Answer

      " is utterly circular, and begs the question"

      ==Look at yourself nut case.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "'there are no gods, so the God of Israel isnt real'"
      Strawman argument.

      There is no reason to accept that the god of Israel exists.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I thought you were working on justification for belief in the God of Israel, Chad. Is that ready to go?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Up to your old games I see? Keep asking why people reject the god of Israel but never actually look or read the answers huh? Let's look at this way Chad, why do I reject say.... Zeus. Well lets see, the creation story does not follow how we know the universe and the earth was created in reality. Furthermore from how the lore and myth describes Zeus, he has yet to make any appearence since the canon was closed. Events that seemed like miracles attributed to Zeus can actually be explained by natural phenomena or exageration. Not to mention Zeus was and is known as a jealous god, he says so himself, and yet I've blasphemed more times than I can count and Zeus does not even lift a finger, or show himself, or perform any miracles, etc...

      Now insert god, Ahura Mazda, Odin, Ra, etc,,, where I said Zeus and you'll understand why I put your god in with all the rest. The only difference between your god and the ones I just listed is amount of followers (which we both know is a fallacy ad populum to say the idea with the most followers is right....)

      February 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad, Don't we go through this on a daily basis. What proof do you have that gods such as Odin, Zeus, Kokopelli, etc. do not exist. Whatever that is it applies to your god. But maybe you could post here so we all know what proof you have of the other gods.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
    • I feel sorry for the little guy

      Poor Chad. He has been busted on circular logic so many times that he has become resentful and tries, ridiculously, to accuse everyone else of it. But he has to misrepresent what people actually have said to do it, so he runs afoul of another fallacy. Expect his to start accusing everyone else of circular logic.

      And his sciency schtuff, yes, he has been walloped so many times by science and logic that he got resentful and tried to make himself all sciency, grabbing whatever he could from fundie websites and thoroughly misrepresenting the actual science involved.

      So many bitter resentments. Poor angry Chad.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • sam stone

      harvey: way ahead of you on that one.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • sam stone

      Chad: And there you go with your conjecture that the god of israel is real. What evidence do you have for that?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles "The only difference between your god and the ones I just listed is amount of followers "
      @Chad "well, that statement would only be made by a person with zero understanding of the bible and the historical accuracy of it's contents..

      ======
      @In Santa we trust "What proof do you have that gods such as Odin, Zeus, Kokopelli, etc."
      @Chad "So, your planned excuse is "well, chad didnt disprove Odin, so I didnt feel I had to disprove the God of Israel?"

      you think it will work?

      =====
      @ME II "There is no reason to accept that the god of Israel exists."
      @Chad "well, that's nonsense. You may not be familiar with any of the reasons (why is that again?), but there are excellent reasons.

      Namely:
      Historical evidence
      – no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect
      – Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
      – Historicity of the empty tomb
      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.

      Scientific evidence for the God of Israel
      Fossil Record.
      From the late 1800's thru 1972 the notion of "Darwinian gradualism" held the world captive. The notion that purely random mutation preserved in the population by natural selection would produce a gradual change, which over time would create the complexity of life we now observe (phyletic gradualism).
      Then, in 1972 the publication of "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" by Stephen Gould (atheist) finally forced the scientific world to accept the reality that the fossil record does not show the gradual change over time that Darwin proposed.

      Instead, what the community was forced to acknowledge, is that the fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change.
      This supports the theistic evolutionist claim that God used natural processes to develop life on this earth, as pure chance can never explain the grand paroxysm of necessarily interrelated mutations that are required to occur to accomplish this rapid change.

      Origins of the universe
      For most of scientific history, the universe was thought to have always existed, directly refuting the theistic claim that the universe had a beginning, and a creator.

      Then, a series of discoveries resulted in a complete transformation of thought, we now know that our universe has not always existed, rather it had a beginning, confirming the theistic claim:
      – 1929: Edwin Hubble discovers red shift (the stars and planets are all moving away from each other. The universe is expanding in all directions)
      – 1965: discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation (the echo's of the big bang)
      – 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999).
      – 2003: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe proves our universe had a beginning

      Fine Tuning of the universe
      In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.

      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the mas ses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life - Stephen Hawking

      “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. Dyson of the Insti tute for Advanced Study in Princeton

      Now, neither Davies or Hawking is a believer in God. They both believe in fine tuning, they just posit natural reasons for it.

      Evidence from human experience
      – Objective morality exists
      – Free will exists (it doesn’t in the atheist/naturalist/determinist view)

      February 27, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • JMEF

      There are about 5 billion people on earth that really do not give a sh it one way or the other if the God of Isreal is real or not, me included. If you want to believe in that particular myth go right ahead, if I choose not to do so, why do you care? Why do I reject Justin Beiber as a talented performer, it is a personal matter of taste, same can be said about the stoies of Jesus.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Enlighten me then please. How was Zeus and ancient greek myth not steeped in history? Was there not an ancient greece? Sparta? Athens? Is there not a mount olympus? The Iliad mentions the city of Troy and we think we have found where Troy actually was, does that mean the gods joined in on battle, or that there were heros like Achilles who could only be killed by being stabbed in his heal? I guess it also means that the Illiad is a complete, word for word description of events without even a little exageration then huh?

      What about Ancient Egypt? or Old Scandanavia?

      It seems you are still confusing "historical accuracy" to mean that for some reason if a book mentions a real place, or person or even a thing, it automatically makes the impossible things mentioned in the same book probable. For a guy who accuses atheists of using fallacies you sure do use a lot yourself....

      February 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Chad

      there needs to be a reason that something is rejected as being true.

      – "That isnt true because it isnt true" is not a reason.
      – What ever your reasons are for rejecting Zeus/Odin, they dont have any bearing on the reasons you dont have for rejecting the God of Israel.
      – I think all the other gods are fake, so that means the God of Israel is fake, isnt a reason.

      Christians/Jews have a reason for rejection other gods.

      What is the atheist reason?

      February 27, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      This bit "no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect" doesn't really lead to confidence in claims that are not of a historical nature. I think I mentioned that a friend of mine had published a scholarly book on Abraham Lincoln recently. It is pretty sound on historical details. He could have added to the book that the God of Israel is real and Jesus Christ was His only begotten son. He could have claimed that Lincoln was actually an avatar of Ganesh. No support for any of that in the text (or elsewhere), so no no one should have believed it had he put it there, but the book would still be good in all its information on the history of Lincoln and his times.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • JMEF

      OK, the God of Isreal is real, I do not reject that reality, happy now. I still have no faith in his many religions, more deist than atheist I guess.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad needs a lecture on credulity and its consequences.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
    • Chad

      " It is pretty sound on historical details. He could have added to the book that the God of Israel is real and Jesus Christ was His only begotten son"

      =>well, that's precisely the point isnt it, your friend didnt do that. He was taking his task seriously and taking pains to ensure everything was accurate. Even though including that information IS actually true, he probably feels it isnt, and not relevant to the history he was presenting, so he didnt.

      an author that claims to be producing a non-fiction work, and who is demonstrably conscientious with historical details that can be otherwise verified, gains credibility by doing so when it comes to presenting other events as actual history.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • Answer

      Look at that ... Chad's 5 point plan. A failure.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • JMEF

      Try and answer this question honestly. What business is it of yours and why do you care that people reject your God of Isreal? Are you planning to convert every person on earth to your belief system?

      February 27, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • Wait..

      Is Chad related to L4H, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again hoping it to be true.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad. Gaps in our knowledge (both real and those that you imagine) does not mean a god did it and especially not your god.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Thanks for the "Gish Gallup". The number of points does not make any single one any stronger, especially if they are incorrect.

      Historyical evidence:
      Historical evidence, or at least what we have of the timeframe in question, is only evidence of what someone reported as happening, and in most cases hearsay about what happened, it is not definitive evidence that it actually happened.

      Additionally, there are many historical inaccuracies in the Bible, even if you refuse to admitt them, e.g. timing and order of "creation", worldwide flood, Joshua's stopped sun, the birth year of Jesus, etc.

      Fossil Record:
      The fossil record fully supports the modern Theory of Evolution and has over 100 years of research and evidence to support it. If you want to think that a deity 'orchestrated' certain things, then fine, but the theory of evolution does not require it.

      Origin of the universe:
      Ultimately we don't know what the origin of the universe is. But not knowing is not evidence of a creator god, or whatever you call it. We know certain things with some amount, though not complete, certainty, but beyond a certain point we have little if any evidence and much speculation.

      Fine Tuning of the universe:
      Often in nature the appearance of design or fine tuning is misleading. There may very well be a naturalistic (or at least non-designed) reason for all the specific constants in the universe.
      But again just because we don't know something or understand it completely doesn't mean that a god did it.

      Evidence from human experience:
      I disagree that objective morality exists.
      Honestly I'm not sure about Free Will, so I won't go into it.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Ron

      January 2013 The scientific world is abuzz with news of the ratification of the existence of the subatomic particle called the Higgs boson – or more colloquially, the 'God particle.' This subatomic particle's existence – which was verified recently (with virtually near certainty) by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland – lends credence to several long-standing physical theories such as the so-called Standard Model and the Big Bang Theory.

      The nickname God particle is ironic for two reasons. First, generally, the nuclear physicists who deal with these matters – postulating the fundamental physical laws of the universe and then setting about to either verify or refute them – tend not to be regular church-goers. While there are some highly prominent scientists who balance personal, religious beliefs with professional, scientific quests, most probably go along with the thoughts of the world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking.

      "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God."

      So, it is a bit ironic that physics' most famous quest has resulted in the discovery of the 'God particle.' Most physicists are quite comfortable having their names associated with famous – even if dead – humans like Newton, Einstein or the afore-mentioned Hawking. One will find few, if any, attributions to deities in the objects that physicists discover and name or the theories they propose.

      Second, and more importantly, the discovery that the God particle really exists does not – as the name suggests – imply that God played some role in the creation of the universe. In fact, quite the opposite.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad. '"That isnt true because it isnt true" is not a reason.'

      Yet "That is true because it is true" is a reason when it comes to your god and your religion.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • William

      "no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect"

      From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Foxwell Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

      Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • William

      We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      "there needs to be a reason that something is rejected as being true."
      - Lack of evidence is a good enough reason to reject a hypothesis....

      – "That isnt true because it isnt true" is not a reason.
      "I didn't say that"
      – What ever your reasons are for rejecting Zeus/Odin, they dont have any bearing on the reasons you dont have for rejecting the God of Israel.
      -Why not? I blaspheme about Zeus all the time and he doesn't even make me break a sweat, same as god. Both Zeus and god claim to perform supernatural acts that are impossible without supernatural powers and yet we haven't seen anything on earth that breaks a natural law. It would seem that my reasoning for rejecting Zeus, Odin, et al is exactly the same reason as I reject the god of the bible.
      "- I think all the other gods are fake, so that means the God of Israel is fake, isnt a reason."
      - I've shown you why all other gods are fake and how it corresponds to why the god of the bible is fake. That statement alone might not hold muster in your mind, but I didn't say that without qualifying it.

      "Christians/Jews have a reason for rejection other gods."
      -Yes, so do Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Shintos, etc..., just because they have a reason doesn't mean they are right or they are making that judgement on a valid premise.

      "What is the atheist reason?"
      - I hope from the above reply and the reply above THAT answers this question (though it probably won't because you don't read)

      February 27, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Science

      Do you have a picture from 2013 of your god Chadie ?

      Love to see it.

      Paece

      Poke

      February 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Chad is a Leninist

      The lie told many times becomes the truth.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Rachel is also a Leninist

      Funny, that.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
    • Cosette is also also a Lenninist

      Indeed

      February 27, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
    • Science

      Hey Chad

      Looks like a quorum ,

      Jesus can not save you now. !

      Peace

      February 27, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • Cosette

      That b!tch Rachel may be a Leninist.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "in most cases hearsay about what happened"
      @Chad "Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, James, Jude, all eye witnesses"

      =====
      @ME II "timing and order of "creation", worldwide flood, Joshua's stopped sun, the birth year of Jesus, etc."
      @Chad "only thing I am aware of in Genesis potentially being out of order that I can recall is the flowing plants.. Flood, we've been thru before, we dont know when it was, nor do we know how widespread it was. Stopped sun could simply be light for 24 hours straight, birth year of Jesus?? Not sure what you are talking about there.

      ========
      @ME II "The fossil record fully supports the modern Theory of Evolution and has over 100 years of research and evidence to support it. If you want to think that a deity 'orchestrated' certain things, then fine, but the theory of evolution does not require it."
      @Chad "there is simply no credible naturalistic theory on the table that supports stasis and rapid change. Cladogenesis gets no research at all that I can see, and there isnt anything else on the table.
      So, theistic evolution is the only credible explanation of the fossil record.
      I suspect you kept your response general, just referring to "evolution" because you know precisely that..

      ==========
      @ME II "Ultimately we don't know what the origin of the universe is. But not knowing is not evidence of a creator god, or whatever you call it. We know certain things with some amount, though not complete, certainty, but beyond a certain point we have little if any evidence and much speculation."
      @Chad "we know it had a non-natural origin, pretty "head in the sand" not to acknowledge that, dont you think?
      ========
      @ME II "Often in nature the appearance of design or fine tuning is misleading"
      @Chad "the universe is fine tuned, that's just a fact.

      : "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop." Dr. Dennis Scania, Cambridge University Observatories

      "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all." - Dr. David D. Deutsch, Insti tute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

      "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a 'put-up job.'" - Dr. Paul Davies, Adelaide University:

      "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars - Sir Fred Hoyle

      "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quanti ties had slightly different values." - Dr. Gerald Schroeder, former professor of physics at M.I.T.

      beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. - Professor Steven Weinberg

      The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side." - Michael Turner, astrophysicist University of Chicago

      the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment." - Roger Penrose University of Oxford

      February 27, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      You never disappoint those that have demonstrated your dishonest tactics over and over. Truly, you are the poster child for the standard dishonest zealot.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles "Lack of evidence is a good enough reason to reject a hypothesis...."
      @Chad
      1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
      2. Vast amounts of positive evidence are available, see above. By what do you reject that?

      ====
      @Chuckles "I blaspheme about Zeus all the time and he doesn't even make me break a sweat, same as god"
      @Chad "your reason for rejection the God of Israel is that He hasnt struck you dead yet??

      ======
      @Chuckles "Yes, so do Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Shintos, etc..., just because they have a reason doesn't mean they are right or they are making that judgement on a valid premise."
      @Chad "It doesnt make them right, but it also doesnt excuse you 🙂

      so what is the atheist reason? He hasnt struck you dead yet, the supernatural is impossible, other gods are fake.. that's it?

      February 27, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Cosette

      Don't be so mean to me.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @william,
      not having found archaeological evidence yet is a vastly different thing than disproving something.

      Dont forget, up until 1961 atheists gleefully claimed that Pilate was a Christian invention.
      then, they found the Pilate Stone.

      Never bet against the bible.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:37 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Do you feel just this undeniable eed to be so dishonest? I'm actually really interested in the reason. Are you just some really dedicated Poe?

      February 27, 2013 at 6:38 pm |
    • Dean

      A few of the thousands of errors in Chad's bible.

      The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3

      God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5

      God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8

      Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:11

      God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. 1:11

      In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14

      God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? 1:16

      "He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16

      "And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." 1:17

      In verse 11, God "let the earth bring forth" the plants. Now he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution. 1:24

      God gave humans dominion over every other living thing on earth. 1:26

      God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 1:28

      "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat."
      Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless. Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter? Of course not. But then, you are much nicer and smarter than God. 1:29

      All animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas - all were strict vegetarians, as they were created by God. 1:30

      "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." He purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey. 1:31

      In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is 13.7 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed. 1:31

      Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. 2:7

      After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-22

      God fashions a woman out of one of Adam's ribs.
      Because of this story, it was commonly believed (and sometimes it is still said today) that males have one less rib than females. When Vesalius showed in 1543 that the number of ribs was the same in males and females, it created a storm of controversy. 2:19

      God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before - by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they? 3:14

      Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the (false) Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were all perfectly safe to eat. 3:17-18

      ref: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

      February 27, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad, There's also no archaeological record to disprove Zeus. Those who make the extraordinary claims are the ones that should provide the evidence. No evidence exists that your god or any god exists, yet you deny the others and slip and slide around the truth in defense of your god.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Dean

      So, generally, the bible is a very bad bet.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Jesus is a failure; Chad's empty arguments prove it as much as Chad's inability to honestly deal with facts.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:45 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      No answers. What do you hope to achieve by posting the same drivel day after day? Why do you care if I reject the God of Isreal? What possible diference can it make to you and what you believe?

      February 27, 2013 at 6:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @JMEF

      When people are so insecure in what they believe, like Chad, they need be as dishonest as possible to reinforce that they can get their "faith" to stand up despite facts. Not to mention those that don't believe as they do are seen as a personal insult.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      "1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

      –Sure, but my evidence that is informing my decision isn't solely waiting for god to send a pic of himself and not having it.

      " 2. Vast amounts of positive evidence are available, see above. By what do you reject that?"
      - No, what you have provided isn't "positive evidence", it's your assumption and subjectivity butting in masquarading as evidence to you. Everything you've provided is you saying something is fact (when it isn't) and then expanding on it with your own assumptions. At best you can say you have a hypothesis and show how you've come up with that hypothesis. You go a step further and pretend that your hypothesis skipped theory and moved directly to become law.

      "@Chad "your reason for rejection the God of Israel is that He hasnt struck you dead yet??"
      –One example, sure. Why hasn't god killed me? He had no problem killing literally everyone on earth in a flood for not believing, or killing everyone in S&D, what about those kids who were making fun of the bald guy and he decided to maul children via a bear? I proclaim on a pretty consistant basis that god most likely does not exist and on top of that have convinced a few people to also see why this is so. You would think an all powerful, jealous god would want to do away with me or really any blasphemer right? It's not my only bit of evidence but it definitly points to the fact that even if a creator exists, it most likely isn't the one from the bible.

      "@Chad "It doesnt make them right, but it also doesnt excuse you "

      –Excuse me from what? answering your below question even though I have already with this post, the post before this, the post before that and pretty much every time we converse.....

      "so what is the atheist reason? He hasnt struck you dead yet, the supernatural is impossible, other gods are fake.. that's it?"
      - Well lets say this, the supernatural being impossible should be a good enough reason, but we can go deeper in an focus on other aspects of the god of the bible. The other gods being fake are incidental and are only used as a way to illustrate to you my thought process on why i reject all gods and not specific ones. The deeper reasoning is easy though, god of the bible hasn't shown himself. It's that easy.

      We can go through the bible and discuss how certain events are impossible and most likely exagerrated. We can discuss the many ways that christianity reflects different aspects of pagan mythology of that time and area and the fact that we know christianity certaintly wasn't the first to incorporate various pagan aspects of conquered people to convert them easier (See what Ancient Rome did with the Ancient Greek Pantheon). We can point out that contradictions inherint in bible logic and the timeline or the fact that for a message that should be easy to follow has somehow spawned 3 major religions and thousands upon thousands of sects. However, it all just bolsters a very apparent fact – the god of the bible who seems to be very active within the canon has completely disappeared and has not appeared in an age where he could spread his message to the entire world in 60 seconds.

      February 27, 2013 at 6:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – worth thinking about. Absence of evidence is not proof of anything, but it leaves you with no basis on which to make a claim or justify a belief.

      Chad, if you arrived at your belief in the God of Israel by a method you can identify do you understand it sufficiently so that you would know that if the God of Israel is not real your method would lead you to conclude that the God of Israel is not real?

      February 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Reply on page 8

      February 28, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
  11. Pretorian

    Jesus is how the devious control the ignorant.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
  12. Jeff

    Seriously though...to me, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light.

    I understand not everyone feels this way, but I don't think there needs to be hateful words around this. All the arguments I ever read about in here center on man made issues as it relates to who Jesus is and to what role religion has. People are right to express doubts about man and his perversion of Christ and religion. That said, we're talking about man there, not Jesus.

    All I'm saying is, recognize where the blame goes when this conversation spins out of control as it undoubtedly will.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • Irrational Exuberance

      Of course any discussion of "Jesus" is going to be controlled by the legends and myths surrounding a perosn who may have once lived.

      There is no way to disconnect the two since it is from the religion that the description of Jesus arises.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
  13. Chongo!

    Jesus is what Christians call their inner dialogue, the thing everyone else recognizes as themselves.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
  14. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    Mithra savior is hinduism fabrication of hindus crooks of hindu dark ages to promote hinduism racism, every hindu filthy Pharaoh was called a Mithra, savior god and his hindu crook Magi, fortune teller priest also was called Mithra, savior by hindu invented divide of limit of truth absolute 360.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Word hindu is based on Latin word hindered, negative, Hun, great, Han, to be in greatness, Hin, to be negative to both of them, hindu, a noun in negativity, hinduism, way of negativity. Please visit Limitisthetruth.com to learn hinduism criminality of hindus criminals ageist humanity.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
  15. Flappy Bob

    Jesus is short on cash and needs yours.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:21 pm |
  16. Jeff

    LOL...Justin Bieber's pastor! Oh, well let me stop what I'm doing and listen to this guy!

    February 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
  17. Saved by Grace

    Jesus is _____ our Healer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsUsxcg-fFM

    My son loves Him.

    February 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
    • Kee

      Beautiful.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Jacob

      Aww, Lucas is a beautiful little miracle indeed!
      God bless Lucas as he grows!

      February 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • Doobs

      If your god is such a great healer, why did you keep him in the hospital, using state of the art medical equipment and highly educated, skilled medical staff? Why couldn't your god just heal him at home?

      I'm sure the people who worked around the clock to help your son are thrilled that you don't give them any credit, instead giving it all to an imaginary sky daddy. Seems to me they deserve the credit, not some invisible fairy.

      I suppose the fact that he received medical care had nothing to do with his survival. God did it all wif majik spellz.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • Check

      It's lovely that things worked out for you and your son. I wish you and him well.

      But.... your little son loves Jesus? Really?

      - If this successful outcome had occurred in Iran, he'd probably love Allah.
      - If this successful outcome had occurred in India, he'd probably love Paravati.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
    • Arnie Schwarz

      Okay, so when the child lives, God did it, but when the kindergarteners are slaughtered, God couldn't do it. Right.

      Doobs is right; thank the doctors and the researchers who made it possible.

      Did you know that is a pet peeve of hospital staff: they work their butts off saving someone, and the family thanks god loudly but doesn't thank the medical professionals who actually saved the kid.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • Kee

      ~Doobs
      Have you ever heard a doctor give God the credit for his healing work as a physician? I have. He didn't think God was an invisible fairy. He was smarter than that. Thank God.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Kee

      ~ Arnie "Did you know that is a pet peeve of hospital staff"

      How do you know this? I know a lot of people that work in hospitals. I volunteer in one. I've never heard this.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:11 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Kee

      I've heard doctors go along with what the patient says about god's majik spellz because getting into a religious debate isn't appropriate or productive at the time. I've heard them say it just to be nice and polite. I've never heard one claim an actual divine intervention. Doctors have to be PC too, just like politicians.

      Why couldn't your god just heal this little boy without all the equipment and round the clock care? Why put the child and parents through all the pain and uncertainty?

      If the child hadn't survived, would god get the blame? Of course not, he just called the child home. It was his will that the child have a short, miserable, pain filled life.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
    • Observer

      I am all for the awesome work done by doctors, but the life of a precious little one ultimately rests in the hands of his creator God. If you look at the video it is a miracle. I am sure many doctors would have acknowledged this to the parents.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Kee

      ~ Doobs: "Why couldn't your god just heal this little boy..."

      I don't know. Is that what a god is supposed to do? The Bible says we will suffer and go through sorrow. Life is not a cake walk and it will not be filled with 100% joy. No matter what or who your god is.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Observer

      I watched it. I saw lots of medical equipment and highly trained personnel. That's what enabled this child to survive. Not god, not magic.

      How long would the baby have survived without medical intervention? Why couldn't god help him without it?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
    • Observer

      Whey they brought the blind man to Jesus, they asked him. Master, whose sin is that this man be born blind? his parents? and you know what Jesus answered?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Kee

      Your god couldn't heal this child because your god doesn't exist. Technology does exist, and that's what saved his life.

      Would you blame god if he had died? Doubtful.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Observer

      Doobs, if you asked the parents who were on pins and needles as they saw their precious little one struggling, I can tell they must have been on their knees asking God to perform a miracle.
      You have faith in those machines? really?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • Kee

      @ Doobs

      You really think God wants us to just sit around and watch people die and not try to help them? And not make and use medical, scientific and technological advances?

      Why are a lot of hospitals named after saints?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Observer

      Of course I do. So you're saying that god needs to use a premature baby's pain and suffering to be somehow glorified? What a vicious god you serve.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
    • Observer

      Jesus answered and said,' it is neither the sins of his parent or his that he be born blind. He is born blind so that I may be glorified'
      Lucas is a precious little miracle and I hope he grows up to be a great testimony of the miracle God performed for him in his life.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Kee

      What I am saying is that the medical team and technology saved the child's life, not god's majik.

      What does the name of a hospital have to do with anything?

      February 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Kee

      Doobs: "Your god couldn't heal this child because your god doesn't exist. Technology does exist, and that's what saved his life."

      The child was healed. Thank God for the technology.

      ~ Doobs: "Would you blame god if he had died? Doubtful."

      Yea, I probably would.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Observer

      Like I said, any god that purposely causes suffering and pain in order to feed it's own ego is a vicious, immoral creep. Luckily, hi doesn't exist, and premature babies are a natural event. Sometimes they survive, sometimes not. Luckily for this child and his family, he survived, because he was born in a situation where advanced medical care is available. Had he been born in a poor, less developed country, he likely would not have. He's not a miracle, he's a product of living in an advanced society. No god required.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:41 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Kee

      Lol, so god created the technology. Of course. Typical christian apologetics.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • Observer

      Doobs-However hard you try, you will never be able to think like God. We are not gods to know his mind. Let us stop thinking like we know it all, we need to rely on his grace as human beings. From his comes all healing and peace.

      The choice is yours, if want to reject his grace and walk away, it will be your choice.
      The God that I know and worship will want to have a personal relationship with you.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:45 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ Observer

      Right on cue, you trot out another christian apologetics rationalization when you're confronted with the the contradiction of a loving, benevolent god who causes suffering to glorify himself. "God is beyond our thinking, we can't know his mind."

      And yet you claim to know that he wants a personal relationship with you and that he heals humans when the mood strikes.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Doobs
      It is pointless to try to reason with Kee and Observer and others of their ilk.
      You will try reason and logic, but they have already abandoned both of these intillectual abilities and replaced them with faith.
      Faith is destroyed by logic and reason, so they will avoid them whenever possible.
      Let them live in their virtual bible world, they will never see reality for what it is.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Doobs

      @ RC

      I know, but I enjoy watching them twirl and spin.

      February 27, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • Kee

      To the original poster:

      "Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer."

      February 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • Hike Muckabee

      Kee, that's terrific. We get it that likely the only hospital staff you've ever known worked in Catholic hospitals or whatever, since you're insisting no medical staff would ever compain about people yammering about how god saved them. Yay, yay, woo hoo.

      February 27, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • Kee

      ~Hike

      A university hospital. No Catholic – or religious – affiliation.

      So, you think it is pretty common for people who work in hospitals to complain that everyone is giving the credit to God? And no gratYtude or compensation is being paid toward the workers?

      Really?

      February 27, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
  18. Caleb

    Jesus Is LOVE!

    February 27, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
    • Joshua

      Jesus is God incarnate.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • sam stone

      Jesus is a scarecrow

      February 27, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
    • Jacob

      Jesus is the Prince of Peace!

      February 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
    • Thoth

      And both are human constructs.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
  19. Don't be a coward

    @ BOOTY

    –Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
    –He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
    –He had 12 companions or disciples.
    –Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
    –He performed miracles.
    –As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
    –He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
    –His resurrection was celebrated every year.
    –He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
    –He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," [Word] "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
    –His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
    –Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.
    –His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall nto eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
    –"His annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration."

    THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR THIS? CAN YOU SHOW AT LEAST 1/2 OF THESE CLAIMS? OTHER THAN LOONY ATHEIST WEBSITES THAT ARE DERIVED FROM EACH OTHER?

    Start with #1. Where did you learn that Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25?

    Post a source.

    February 27, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • Don't be a coward

      Wikipedia:

      According to M.J.Vermaseren, the Mithraic New Year and the birthday of Mithras was on December 25.[53][54] However, Beck disagrees strongly.[55] Clauss states: "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras."

      February 27, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Hike Muckabee

      No one cares about your stupid myth hard-on, or how your info seems to be so special you keep posting it twice.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • .

      Don't be a coward = Chad

      They're using wiki – LMAO!

      February 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • Hmmmmm

      This has been answered several times but you keep posting it in hopes your right?

      February 27, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Booty on duty

      I don't know. *shrugs*

      February 27, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Don't be a coward

      @ This has been answered several times but you keep posting it in hopes your right?

      Sorry, I'm not on here that often. I just have seen this "list" posted multiple times today. And just start with the first line:

      "Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, "

      It is totally fabricated. Can you show me where you learned this? Mithra born of a virgin? On December 25th? That is totally made up.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • Booty on duty

      "LOONY ATHEIST WEBSITES THAT ARE DERIVED FROM EACH OTHER"

      Hahahahahahahaha.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @Don't be a coward,
      "It is totally fabricated. Can you show me where you learned this? Mithra born of a virgin? On December 25th? That is totally made up."

      I'm sorry, I thought all supposed-god birthdays were fabricated. Are you saying that Jesus was born on Dec 25th?

      February 27, 2013 at 3:29 pm |
    • Thoth

      @Don't Be a Coward – according to Mithraic Studies, Mithra was born of a rock as full grown adult. There is also no evidence that he was born on Dec 25th (but neither was Jesus based on the bible) As an atheist I find Mithrism to be as absurd as the claims made by Christians about their man-god. You call this posters info "totally fabricated" – perhaps so (I don't know their source), but your statement is true of all religious creeds because they were all fabricated by man.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
    • Don't be a coward

      @ Are you saying that Jesus was born on Dec 25th?

      No. I don't know what date he was born on.

      But some Christians observe his birth on December 25th.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • Don't be a coward

      @ Thoth

      Booty said the Jesus story was a complete copy cat of Mithra, and then posted a list of things that proved it was a copy.

      "Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave..."

      First line. I can't find in source saying Mithra was born of a virgin. Or that December 25th was the date his followers celebrated his birth. Only on a few loony atheist sites do I see this claim made. With NO sources.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:35 pm |
    • ME II

      @Don't be a coward,
      Ah, so Christianity wasn't copied wholesale from Mithraism (?) because December 25th was never Mithra's birthday, is that it?

      So what was December 25th as a birth date copied from?

      February 27, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • Thoth

      @Don't be a Coward – I can't speak to Booty's sources. There is plenty of misinformation out there, but there are also respected authors, historians, archeaologists, etc.... who draw similarites between various man-gods. The reality is there were so many gods/goddesses, from various cultures often merged when cultures merged, and difficult to follow. If you want to beat Booty to death over his/her claim that's your perogative. If they have what they feel is a reliable source, then it makes it no less valid than say, the bible.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • Don't be a coward

      @ Ah, so Christianity wasn't copied wholesale from Mithraism (?) because December 25th was never Mithra's birthday, is that it?

      No.

      @ So what was December 25th as a birth date copied from?

      I think a pagan holiday. I think human beings have been celebrating some kind of winter holiday around that date for a looooong time. Some Christians observe Jesus birthdate on other dates.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • Booty on duty

      Man, those are hard questions. My head is spinning. Let me go look it up on google.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Booty's coach

      Hey Booty , DuckDuckGo is a better search engine

      February 27, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • .

      Encyclopedia Britannica,

      The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation; wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. AD 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world.

      Whether or not they were rivals, it is certainly possible that these two contemporary communities had some influence on each other. In at least one area, it is clear that Christianity adopted an aspect of Mithraism – the celebration of the birth of Christ on December 25, a tradition that began in the 4th century. A Christian writer admitted this in 320 AD, explaining:

      “We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it.”

      February 27, 2013 at 4:17 pm |
  20. Thoth

    Jesus IS a name from the Latin translation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew 'Yeshua'. Jesus IS dead. That's about all I can come up with for the "IS" column. Perhaps he should have included the preface "in your opinion Jesus is _______"

    February 27, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • Timmy

      Jesus is the reason that I know it is ok to beat my slaves.

      February 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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.