home
RSS
Poll: American Catholics agree with pope about culture wars
October 4th, 2013
10:25 AM ET

Poll: American Catholics agree with pope about culture wars

By Dan Merica, CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='danmericaCNN']

Washington (CNN) – American Catholics overwhelmingly support newly installed Pope Francis, according to a poll released Friday, and agree with his statements that the church should focus less on contentious social issues.

Nearly seven in 10 American Catholics say the church has become too focused on same-sex marriage, abortion, and contraceptives, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released Friday.

What's more, 60% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage, a number that continues to be larger than support from all American adults. Thirty-one percent of American Catholics said they do not support same-sex marriage.

This number is consistent with other polls, like a Public Religion Research Institute poll in 2012 that found 59% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage.

Despite the support among American Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church maintains rigorous opposition to same-sex marriage. But in a recent wide-ranging interview with America Magazine, the pope brushed off critics who have said he should be more vocal in trumpeting the church's position on abortion and same-sex marriage.

In the interview, Francis said if the church fails to find a "new balance" between its spiritual and political missions, its moral foundation will "fall like a house of cards."

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods," he told his Jesuit interviewer. "I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that."

But the pope said the church's teachings on those issues are clear, and he clearly believes in those teachings, so what else is there to say?

"It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time," Francis said.

The poll also found 36% of American Catholics say abortion should be legal in most cases, compared to 34% of all Americans.

“On the two issues that have prompted some pulpit thundering, same-sex marriage and abortion, Catholics are right in line, or even a little ahead, of their non-Catholic neighbors,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

While the poll shows support for Francis' statement on social issues, American Catholics appear to disagree with the pope on the ordination of female priests.

According to the survey, 60% of American Catholics support women priests, while 30% are against it.

Earlier this year, Francis emphatically closed the door on women's ordination, telling an audience that the "door is closed" to that possibility.

In his recent interview, Francis reiterated this statement but said that does not mean the church should see women as secondary or inferior.

"Women are asking deep questions that must be addressed," the pope said. "The church cannot be herself without the woman and her role."

Overall, American Catholics are roundly supportive of the new pope, with a whopping 89% saying they have either a very favorable or favorable view of Francis. Only 4% say they have an unfavorable view.

Quinnipiac interviewed 392 Catholics by telephone from September 23-29. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points.

- CNN's Eric Marrapodi and Daniel Burke contributed to this report.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Abortion • Polls • Pope Francis • Same-sex marriage

soundoff (791 Responses)
  1. Bootyfunk

    what a joke.
    the church is slightly less prejudice and they get points for that?
    are g.ays allowed to be priests?
    are women allowed to be priests?
    the pope has affected ZERO policy change.
    he's getting points where they are not due.

    October 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Can murders and thieves be priests?

      October 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        child molesters are often promoted - what's your point?

        October 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
        • Richard Cranium

          So, point being, I'm thinking fully that u r more than ur average idiot dodo, agreed

          October 5, 2013 at 1:29 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      gays can be priests.

      October 4, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        untrue. openly g.ay men cannot serve as priests in the h.omophobic catholic church.

        October 4, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
      • SouthernCelt

        Only if they are celibate. Why would they want to be a Priest?

        October 4, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • OKfine

      can lesbians be priests or only nuns?

      October 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
      • Bill Deacon

        women can't be priests.

        It will be sad for you if the world hears the pope trying to take the discussion to a place where these issues are less inflammatory and you can't follow the dialogue.

        October 4, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          so you're saying there will be a day in the future where the church treats women equally and not as 2nd class citizens, as prescribed in the bible?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
      • OKfine

        It is all so confusing, priests can be married but not to each other, nuns can love each other but can't get married, deacon's can have s&x with both priests and nuns but should keep it quiet and altar boys should accept the payoffs if they just promise to shut up. Have I got anything wrong BD?

        October 4, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          Only your whole life. You attempt to be sarcastic and funny but you actually allude to the kind of people the pope is talking about. Confused, hurting, disillusioned, don't know up from down or right from wrong, materially obsessive and seexually skewed. How can we expect people such as this to comprehend, much less embrace a well ordered way of life unless and until their psychic wounds are healed, their hearts are mended and their souls salved by the grace of Christ? The problem with sin, is it is like some other mental disorders, those who suffer from it refuse to acknowledge they have it and are hostile to therapy

          October 4, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
        • OKfine

          What a tirade of nonsense, do you call that venting your spleen? You didn't come close to answering the question, try again? BTW if anyone is s&xually skewed on this blog it is you. I defy anyone to come up with anything from your posts other than you are s&xually repressed from some guilt complex you have had, let it out Bill. To keep it simple just answer why some priests are allowed to stay married when you personally believe that celibacy is a covenant with your mythical god.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          you don't need god or jesus to be a good person. you don't need to join the cult of christianity to be a good person. you will find, if you search inside yourself, you can be a good person without religion.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          @OKfine
          very well said. unbelievably s.exually repressed, as taught by the church. bill wouldn't know a good time if it sat on his face and wiggled...

          October 4, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
        • OKfine

          BD, as to materially obsessive, that was my career and I am now semi retired providing a few clients with advice on how to invest their IRA's and 401 k's. So yes while making fun of you I also keep track of what the markets are doing. You never did comment on how you think the Vatican Bank is doing, head in the sand Bill. The whole religious scam is all about money you are speaking from ignorance if you do not understand that the princes of the churches, all religions, are living the high life off of the backs of the deluded. One thing I admire about Francis is he is attempting to change that, moving out of the papal apartments was a fine gesture you would expect from a Jesuit. BTW your denunciation of me is far from what anyone would expect from a truly practicing Christian, so easy to pull you off of your high horse, Billy, snicker.

          October 4, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          If BD dropped " and their souls salved by the grace of Christ?" in his rant above it would be very applicable to believers.

          October 4, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
        • Doobs

          It's always amusing to watch Boof Deacon's posts devolve from smug, arrogant piety to spitting bitter and hateful words towards the very people he claims need his message. He's exactly like the frustrated old hags that taught parochial school. One minute they were gliding around with their noses in the air, making a show of saying their rosaries, the next they were practically frothing at the mouth because little Timmy was DISOBEYING GOD BY CHEWING GUM DURING CLASS!

          LOL.

          October 4, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
        • OKfine

          Doobs. That is our Billy a hypocrite in so many ways and a model catholic to boot. Just pull the chain and watch what happens, but he will rush off to the confessional to renew his arrogance.

          October 4, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
        • OKfine

          I fear I have scared off BD, not a bad thing I suppose. Just some info on the Vatican bank BD, they have still not addressed the money laundering scandal and it would seem doc.uments have vanished, a miracle probably. The bank is also involved in a European real estate company coincidentally at the same time that churches are closing down and the Vatican is trying to get top Euro for the land. Religion big business or perhaps both?

          October 4, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Have no fear, BD, just like Topher and I expect Larry, will be back. And it will be as if they never had a conversation, never mind not even being close to defending their delusions. I suspect they're just waiting for Sunday AM when their local charlatan shaman will pump them up with more feel-good crap (in exchange for a few dollars) and they will come out charging, only to be badly beaten gain.

          October 4, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
        • OKfine

          Hot Air Ace
          Actually BD has posted on the next page at 4:09 PM so it looks like he has already done the christian coward thing by not responding here, but you never know maybe he will have a few shots of courage and show up.

          October 4, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          And Larry is behaving the same way as a result of being pummeled over the existence of his god. Par for the course.

          October 4, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
        • joeb

          Yes, you got it all wrong. Back to Catholic 10 fo Dummies.

          October 5, 2013 at 11:44 pm |
        • joeb

          Yes, you got it all wrong. Back to Catholic 101 fo Dummies.

          October 5, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • SouthernCelt

      No jokes. Canon Law has not changed. Society will never change what we believe. Gay Priests? Only if they are celibate. Women Priests? Never going to happen so stop asking. Vatican II was a fairly large policy change, wasn't that enough?

      October 4, 2013 at 3:30 pm |
      • Doobs

        Sticking with that "one new idea per century" approach, I see. Although the RCC went wild in the 1900's, what with Vatican II AND apologizing to Galileo.

        October 4, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • Dippy's Aide

      Bootyfunk,

      * prejudiced

      If one has a prejudice they are prejudiced.

      October 4, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
      • Dippy's Aide

        *caught a boo-boo of my own there - should be: "If one has a prejudice he or she is prejudiced."

        October 4, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
  2. Rainer Braendlein

    The previous popes have betrayed the Christian faith through their greed for honor, power and riches but at least were faithful to the Catholic doctrine. The current pope even betrayes the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine. How far it is a sin to betray a club which is bad in itself remains questionable; at any rate it is a betrayal.

    Both from the stance of the true Christian faith and from the stance of the Catholic Church the pope had to condemn gay marriage. It is clear that this modern Judas is not a fighter for the truth but he only wants to keep church members together with their donations and taxes.

    Go to hell!

    http://confessingchurch.worpdress.com

    October 4, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      anyone who actually followed the bible's commands, they would be amongst the world's worsts serial killer/mass murderers. the bible is a disgusting book and a terrible guide for good living.

      modern ethics > biblical morals

      October 4, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Rainer Braendlein

      Read the history of France how the Catholic clergy sucked this beautiful country up to the maximum. Indirectly the Catholic clergy of France caused the reign of terror in France through Robespierre which beheaded thousands of innocent people.

      How long will we still endure these frauds in ridiculous robes?

      October 4, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        how long will we have to endure the ignorance all religions propose? not just the catholics - all christians are deluded. all religions are cults. when a religion is not accepted by society, it's called a cult. once accepted, a cult becomes a religion. when there are no more followers, a religion becomes a mythology. cults are bad for you. they teach you to turn off your cognitive thinking. they teach you that fairy tales are real.

        leave the cult, think for yourself - you won't regret it.

        October 4, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          Fairy tales?

          When God came down on mount Sinai in order to give the commandments, that was seen by a multi-tude of people, and the country Israel still commemorates this day, and this for some thousand years.

          Your disbelief is delusion but the Christian faith bases on facts.

          Think straight!

          Today when any action is witnessed by 2 or 3 people it will be recognized as true. When God came down on mount Sinai it was witnessed by thousands of people. It really took place.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          thanks BF, I love your work!

          October 4, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Rainer, all you and every mentally ill delusional believer has are unsubstantiated stories, not facts. There is not a single fact to support any supernatural claim. None! But go ahead, prove me wrong. You will be the first.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          Fairy tales?
          +++ yes, many of them poorly written.

          When God came down on mount Sinai in order to give the commandments, that was seen by a multi-tude of people, and the country Israel still commemorates this day, and this for some thousand years.
          +++ no it wasn't. that's one of the silly fairy tales i was referring to. no one saw god because he doesn't exist.

          Your disbelief is delusion but the Christian faith bases on facts.
          +++ you don't know what the word "fact" means. you have facts, i love to see them. the christian cult is based on magic, like all religions/cults. you are allergic to facts and reason. there is ZERO proof god exists.

          Think straight!
          +++ hilarious coming from a christian.

          Today when any action is witnessed by 2 or 3 people it will be recognized as true. When God came down on mount Sinai it was witnessed by thousands of people. It really took place.
          +++ silly. because someone writes in a book "and thousands of people saw it happen" doesn't actually make it so. otherwise, you must admit other gods are real as they have also had "eye-witness" accounts of their own brand of magic events. so do you believe in Allah? because they have "eye-witnesses" too. so does that prove Allah is real?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:51 pm |
        • guest

          @ your 2:51 post,it goes both ways; There is ZERO PROOF that God does not exist.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
        • niknak

          Rainer Braindead,

          You have absolutely ZERO proof of your god, much less it coming down from some mountain.
          Face it bro, you have bought into a great big lie.

          Not only do we not believe your god myth, but the vast majority of the world doesn't believe in it.
          Because they have their own god(s) myth.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          guest
          @ your 2:51 post,it goes both ways; There is ZERO PROOF that God does not exist.

          +++ horrible reasoning... or lack thereof. it is up to the one making the claim to supply the proof. you say there is a god - prove it. i don't have to disprove anything. in fact, that's impossible. for instance, disprove i'm god. you can't does that make it so?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      Luther (RB's hero), Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immacu-late co-nceptions).

      October 4, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
      • Rainer Braendlein

        Another platter finally?

        October 4, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
        • OKfine

          Are you at Oktoberfest? Another platter indeed, sin off and sleep it off.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
        • OKfine

          sign off although sin off kind of works.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • sam stone

      oooh, rainy, hell.....must be pretty scary for those who believe in that tripe

      October 4, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • guest

      This really isn’t a reply to anyone in particular, but I wanted to include it in this thread.
      There are many Protestants who consider the Pope to be the antichrist, 666. “…for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six [666]” (Revelation 13:18) It would take a whole Bible study to explain why the Papacy is 666, but trust me, there is more to it than just a few verses in Revelation.

      October 4, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
      • Bootyfunk

        i don't trust you. mostly because you're talking gibberish. the bible is a book of fairy tales. there is more wisdom in any Dr. Seuss book than the bible.

        October 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
      • Rainer Braendlein

        The pope is only the forerunner of the Antichrist in the West (Mohammed and his successors were it in the East).

        666 is a period of time of 666 years when the pope had not only ecclessiastical power but also worldly power. Ask any secular historian, and he will confirm that during the dark age the pope was the most powerful man of the world in the West (the East was ruled by the Islam).

        In Europe the rule of the pope was finished not through the Reformation of Luther but through the glorious victories of Frederic the Great, King of Pruzzia, who humbled the Habsburgians who were puppets of the pope.

        October 4, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
        • guest

          This could make a lively discussion, but unfortunately whenever I try to make long posts, for some reason they do not post, and it would take a long Bible study to give the evidence.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
        • sam stone

          wow, rainy.....you are deluded

          October 4, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
        • Joey

          guest, you should keep in mind that the Bible by itself isn't evidence of anything.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
        • Romans 8:1

          There is the good news and the bad news.

          The bad news is, you focus on condemning other Christians to hell. 🙁

          The good news is, that Christ came to planet earth as an atonement of sins, for all those that believe in Him and have accepted His plan of salvation to eternal life. 🙂 🙂

          Guess what, the message of Christ supersedes your message !!!

          October 4, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          There is no salvation without discipleship!

          Jesus neither aspired after power, honor and riches, nor sought he the recognition og the world. A Christian has to do the same, yet the pope does the opposite, hence he is no follower of Christ, and will certainly be condemned at Judgement Day.

          Jesus sacrifice was an atonement, but also a work of redemption. We have to accept both characteristics of His sacrifice, or it will not be of any benefit for us.

          Jesus wants to redeem us in order to make as able to follow him. If we follow him we have also the forgiveness of our sins.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
        • Romans 8:1

          I believe Pope Francis is a humble servant of Christ. Only Christ knows what is in a persons heart, this pope is reaching out to the lost in a positive way with the message of Christ love, which is very important as there are many lost souls that need to hear the message of Christ's love, hope ,forgiveness and eternal life that is available only in Christ Jesus.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          The papal office is bad, extremly bad in itself. No matter what the pope tells, it cannot be accepted as Christian message.

          Jesus Christ is the head of the true Church, and the pope has stolen that office from Christ. The real Church should be reigned by the Holy Spirit, the administrator of Christ, but the administrator of the RCC is a little human dwarf, the pope, and therefore she has become a pi-sspot of heresies.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
        • Romans 8:1

          We all should look to Christ as the author and finisher of our faith and look to no man,As the Scriptures say, "No one is righteous–not even one.

          Our focus is to share the gospels, doesn't matter if you share it individually or as an organization, we are all accountable , be it the pope or anyone else, to Almighty God.

          Understand there are differences but the bottom line is we all belong to Christ and Christ is the head of the church, we need to learn to love our catholic brothers and sisters.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          Just read the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) and you will notice that the RCC is a very strict hierarchy. The priests and bishops are limbs of the popes mystical body in a real sence, and the pope is head of this mystical body.

          The true Christian Church knows no hierarchy but only local priests or pastors and bishops which are not controlled by any higher bishop. Matters of doctrine are discussed on free concils which are not predetermined by any lousy human dwarf (compared with the Godhead), called pope. A free Christian council is led by the Holy Spirit, and hence the truth will turn out.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          The very center of the Catholic Church is the pope, this is a matter of fact but that means that he is God in the RCC.

          My God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit dwelling in heaven.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:20 pm |
        • The Other Bob

          In other words, dog and cats living together, mass hysteria...

          October 7, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • sam stone

      guest is right

      there is zero proof that god does not exist

      as there is zero proof that there isn't a invisible squirrel driving a mini 54 buick around venus while singing "does your chewing gum lose it's flavor on the bedpost overnight?"

      October 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Romans 8:1

      "Go to hell!"

      -Do you talk about the message of "dispensation of Grace" at all, or is your specialty in "hell"???

      October 4, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
      • Lawrence of Arabia

        OK, that was funny... 🙂

        October 4, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
    • The Other Bob

      True Christian faith and Catholic doctrine are frequently mutually exclusive concepts. For example, worship any good idols today?

      October 7, 2013 at 10:51 am |
  3. Doc Vestibule

    The RCC is in a losing battle against what they dub "the dictatorship of relativism".
    They are in a war against any ethical system other than their own but understand that thanks to the cross cultural communication now commonplace, the average citizen can't be fleeced into believing that their particular belief system is the only one that can possibly hold together a society.

    When the majority of the world's citizens hold "relativistic" opinions contrary to the immutable dogma of the RCC, it is best to keep it quiet until you have an audience of like-minded people.

    " When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
    I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
    But they – Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy. "

    October 4, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      I agree Doc. Just yesterday I proudly and in my outside voice requested a butt-plug. Not for me of course, Bill Deacon's birthday is coming up.

      October 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
      • Bill Deacon

        Behold Sara, two fine examples of objectification of others for personal gratification.

        October 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
        • Apple Bush

          Sorry Bill, I have no intention of watching you, but have fun and happy birthday.

          P.S. You could at least say thank you.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Bill
          Just as so many Bible quoters tell me, context is key.
          The quote I give above is from Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life".
          The man is giving that speech to his wife – who noted that "we have two children and we've had se.xual intercourse twice".... How exactly is that the objectification of someone for personal fulfillment?

          That scene follows immediately the one in which a Catholic father informs his dozens of children that he has to sell them for scientific experimentation because "God has blessed us so much, I can't afford to feed you all".

          October 4, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          hooray gratification!!!

          October 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
        • Sara

          I agee with you on the AppleBush one, but am not seeing that as a prime motivator in Doc's post, rather this looks like a story to expand on his point. I'm not really a Monty Pythonfan, though, so I can't speak to the film as a whole.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
        • Bootyfunk

          just remember...
          every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great!
          when a sperm gets wasted, god gets quite irate!

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

          October 4, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
        • Apple Bush

          Sara is right, I have allowed myself to lower my standards to Bill's level. My apologies.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
  4. Apple Bush

    The grave digs a while, deep enough for you and your flat screen and a few other gadgets. The worshippers believe if you are buried with your valuables you will get to set up a “cloud” in heaven and you can access your music from any of your wireless devices.

    The grave leans on his shovel and thinks for a moment.

    Being older and more knowledgeable, the dirt guru decided to just fill in the hole and quit for the day. The sun burned bright and the pebbles in the grave’s dirt sparkled.

    He found some shade and quietly hoped no one would try to bury themselves.

    October 4, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
  5. Brother Maynard

    Sorry ... but I have to say "So what !"
    The Pope is arguably the highest ranking clergy in the world. If anybody has the "ear" of god it would be the pope. If anybody has divine knowledge or is in contact with the ultimate ultra / hyper/ super natural being that is know as god it would be the Pope.
    Until this guy really does something for the world he is a fraud.
    I want this guy to go to Syria ... stop the war. Then go to Mecca make peace with Islam. Go to Jeruselm solve the conflict there.
    Put up or shut up Francis.

    October 4, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I'd be happy if he merely released all information the RCC has about pedophile priests and the criminal coverup of same. He doesn't need the agreement of any third party to do that. What is he hiding?

      October 4, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
  6. Where is your God now?

    You are a teenager taking swimming lessons with your aunt. You don’t know where the changing rooms are and your aunt points you in the wrong direction. You end up in the birthday party room. It is empty so you change there. You come out for your lesson and discover that the glass you were surrounded by is one way. Everyone on the outside could see everything you were doing on the inside.

    October 4, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      fantasies of self revelation must be terrifying for you

      October 4, 2013 at 11:49 am |
      • Apple Bush

        No.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:57 am |
      • OKfine

        As long as there isn't a priest or deacon around, not so much. How about you BD? Only in front of ho0kers? When you converted (born again to the RCC) did you give your regular girls a golden parachute?

        October 4, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        why are you in such a nasty mood today Bill?

        October 4, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          I'm concerned for Apple. I think he's in more trouble than he realizes

          October 4, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
        • OKfine

          BD you should know or think you know considering from the depth of depravity that you came from, needed that redemption, right Bill.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • ME II

      What a contrived scenario. Do your pools have "birthday rooms" with one-way mirrors in them?

      Just the thought of a room associated with a pool having one-way mirrors is creepy.

      October 4, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
      • Where is your God now?

        I actually read that story in the paper. True story.

        October 4, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
        • ME II

          Citation please.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
        • Apple Bush

          Sorry, I don't remember. I read it somewhere. You want a citation for a silly joke post? lol

          October 4, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
  7. frederick johnsen

    So American Catholics are happy that the pope is not talking about any relevant issues that are a) contrary to God's will and b) cause/symptom of the decline in morality in the world. How typically American

    October 4, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • Madtown

      We(like everyone) just don't know what God's will is, so we're happy not to be consistently told we're diverging from it.

      October 4, 2013 at 11:45 am |
      • Lawrence of Arabia

        What is the will of God?
        1)That you be saved (2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 18:11-14, 1 Timothy 2:3-4)
        2)That you be spirit filled (Ephesians 5:15-21, Romans 8:9-11)
        a)All Christians have the spirit of God present, but the idea is to have the spirit of God DO.MINANT. How? Colossians 3:16 – Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you…
        3)That you be sanctified – be set apart, holy (1 Thessalonians 4:3)
        a)Abstain from se.x sin
        b)Posses his own vessel in sanctification and honor – as in 1 Corinthians 9:27 – discipline your body so that it honors God at all times
        c)Don’t act like godless people – guided by their impulses and lusts
        d)Don’t take advantage of anyone (1 Peter 4:8)
        4)That you be submissive (1 Peter 2:13-17)
        5)That you be suffering (1 Peter 2:20, 3:17, 4:19, 5:10, 2 Timothy 3:12)
        6)That you be thankful (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

        Jesus is the supreme example of these: see John 4:4, John 5:19, 30, 1 Peter 4:1-2

        October 4, 2013 at 11:52 am |
        • Madtown

          Larry makes my point for me about as well as possible. If God truly decided he'd provide his will for us, as a set of rules to live by, why on earth would he not provide it to all the humans he created? How could we consider something to be "God's will", when it's not accessible to a large number of God's creations? That doesn't make sense. God's will seems supreme, superceeding anything else. A human that God created can't follow God's will, if they are not aware of how to learn of it. Therefore, God's will is certainly not contained in the bible. Larry makes my point for me. Thanks Larry.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:59 am |
        • Sara

          Madtown, Maybe he's just kind of whimsical. The abrahmic god, like most early gods, had definite favorites. We've just seen this god transformed to have moral characteristics we prefer, but aren't consistent with the earlier versions.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
        • Madtown

          Happy Friday Sara. Yes, I've never understood how anyone could believe a loving, just, and supremely righteous God would play favorites.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
        • ME II

          @Lawrence of Arabia,
          "What is the will of God?"

          Don't you mean, 'What is someone's interpretation or what someone else wrote claiming it was the will of God' ?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
        • Sara

          Madtown, I think the idea of Justice was different back then, and the gods only expected to look out for their own tribes. Adding on the rest of the baggage since then it starts to contradict itself. But the original god was much more human.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
        • ME II

          "interpretation or" -> "interpretation of"

          October 4, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
        • sam stone

          isn't that sweet? larry is speaking for god again

          i will write this day down and forever cherish it

          the prophet spoke

          October 4, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
        • sam stone

          larry....if it is god's will that you be suffering, do something to really please him..

          take a claw hammer and, using the hammer part, smack yourself at least 10 times full force in your forehead

          you will see jesus clearly

          October 4, 2013 at 1:08 pm |
      • HotAirAce

        Larry, you've neglected to prove there are any gods, even just one. If you can't prove there is a good, your beliefs have no foundation and you are likely to be mentally ill. Seek Help!

        October 4, 2013 at 11:57 am |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          You know, I spent a lot of time listening to Lawrence Krauss explain his "A Universe from Nothing," but I stopped taking him seriously when both he, and Richard Dawkins said "You can't use common sense to understand this because it doesn't make sense," and then when he redefined what the word "nothing" means, I placed him fully into the category of one who cannot be trusted...

          At least the claims of Christianity do not require you to redefine words or throw away common sense.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
        • midwest rail

          By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

          What was that again, Larry ?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Midwest,
          I agree with you... What was your point?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
        • midwest rail

          You said Christians don't engage in the practice of redefining things – yet A.I.G, redefines the term science every day.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Ok Larry, you discount Krauss and Dawkins, no problem. Please give us *your* definitive and conclusive argument for any god based on factual, objective, independent and verifiable facts. I look forward to seeing the first successful proof but I'm not holding my breath. . .

          October 4, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "when he redefined what the word "nothing"

          That is the funny thing Larry, how would you define "nothing"? Would it be the complete absence of everything known and unknown? If so then where in our universe can you find "nothing"? We have already understood that "empty" space is not really empty, so where can we find nothing? We go all the way back to the singularity where we are still finding something, and before that just background radiation which still does not confirm "nothing" ever existed. Our universe might have never experienced "nothing" as defined above and is constantly renewing, shifting from one form to another, matter into dark matter and back again. That is not a redefining of "nothing" but a better understanding about what the term might indicate or implicate when examining our natural world.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Midwest,
          I assume you mean "Answers in Genesis" by AIG? Well, they don't speak for Christianity, they are merely a Christian organization who attempts to defend Genesis.

          What specifically have they done to redefine terms?

          HotAir,
          I make no claims to owning proof... But what I can say as to verifyable proof of the existence of God goes like this:
          1)Every finite and contingent ent.ity has a cause.
          2)An uncaused effect cannot exist.
          3)A causal loop cannot exist.
          4)A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
          5)Therefore, a First Cause (something that is not an effect of something else) must exist.

          Since it is impossible for something to create itself out of nothing (out of nothing, nothing comes, regardless of what Krauss says, since he must redefine terms to make his point), every effect is determined by a cause. That cause is in its turn determined by another cause. But we cannot assume an infinite series of causes, because an infinite series of causes with no beginning is a contradiction, as a causal chain by definition must have a beginning. Hence there must be an uncaused Cause, the ultimate Cause of all the events that proceed from it. This ultimate and supreme Cause we call God.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Just the Facts,
          Because Krauss is coming to the table with the pre conceived notion of the known universe "creating itself." That is impossible, because it would have to exist before it existed to create itself... (either that, or he's assuming that the universe is eternal – but given that our universe demonstrates countless signs of mutability, then it isn't eternal) Also, we have "something" now, and once you have "something," it is impossible to have "nothing." But he makes the flaw in assuming that the way that things USED to be, are based on the way that things ARE NOW. And that is a fatal flaw in his ideas.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
        • sam stone

          really, larry?

          a spirit knocks up a virgin

          a man dies and, after being in the ground for 3 days rises up

          a woman gets talked into eating a piece of fruit by a talking serpent

          how much of this is common sense?

          you people are amusing

          October 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          You propose a god because you can't deal with an infinite and unknown number of causes. You can't handle "we don't know."

          But let's assume there was an initial cause as you fantasize. Please explain why that cause would have the characteristics your cult claims – that it cares about what is going on here and now.

          Also, please note, I asked for factual, objective, verifiable and independent evidence. You have provided none thus far – just mumbo-jumbo to support your delusions.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Sam Stone,
          Miracles defy explaination as to how they occur, since by definition, they are an intrusion into the natural order of things, but they do make sense if you know the whole story.
          Once again, don't base your understanding of how things used to be on how things are now. Just because miracles are not common place today, doesn't mean that God wouldn't choose to use them in the past.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Hot Air,
          No, infinite causal chains do not exist – they are impossible.
          OK, proof... Well, all that the logical argument that I proposed would do is to lead someone to the understanding that "a" god must exist. Further proof (if you're on board so far) is to look to nature itself. Paul says that the attributes of God are clearly seen in the things that are made – referring to creation. So what can we gather about God from creation?
          God is:
          • Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
          • Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
          • Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
          • Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
          • Timeless and changeless (He created time)
          • Immaterial (because He transcends space)
          • Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
          • Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
          • Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
          • Diverse yet has unity (as nature exhibits diversity)
          • Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
          • Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
          • Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
          • Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

          October 4, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          In short, the reason we have "something" rather than "nothing" is God. There is no natural explaination that makes sense. Even Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss would admit to that.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          1)Every finite and contingent ent.ity has a cause.
          2)An uncaused effect cannot exist.
          3)A causal loop cannot exist.
          4)A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
          5)Therefore, a First Cause (something that is not an effect of something else) must exist.

          So without you retreating into "well my God is infinite and can break universal law" you have just disproved your own God. If you do retreat to that position then the logical reponse is "well then so does my infinite universe". I know based on science that this universe we exist in made us, so why could it not posess all the imagined powers of your God without the personality flaws? The universe says when you die, your done, that's it, hope you spent your time well. The religious say when you die their personal God get's to decide whether you live an even more perfect comfortable existence for eternity in heaven or an existence of unimaginable torment for eternity in heII. They believe this in contradiction to everything we know about the universe where even the stars eventually will fade out and die. Not a single thing in the entire universe can claim eternal life, and yet for some reason many humans refuse to understand this and believe they get to live on for eternity. Now I know this is a fun happy thought that has no evidence so why not just keep adding in cool stuff for the afterlife? Like you get to be Kings and Gods of your own planets after you die, oh, wait, that's already taken by the Mormons...but seriously, why are you so self centered to think you get to live on even though your life span is no greater than that of some tortoises (in fact one tortoise named Hanako lived to the very ripe age of 226 years). Yet humans think they are so special they get to keep on keepin on in some form, which they do if they understood that form is dust and not some disembodied soul haunting the earth.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Just The Facts,
          You said:
          "Not a single thing in the entire universe can claim eternal life"
          So if this is true, that the universe is not eternal, and knowing that nothing can create itself... Doesn't that force you to conclude there is a God?

          If there is no natural explaination, then why is it so hard to turn to a supernatural one?

          October 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
        • tallulah13

          I am interested in your answer to the previous question, Larry. Why do you think that if the universe needed a creator that it would be your god? There are thousands of gods, Larry, and many of them have been credited with creation. There is equal evidence for all of them (none at all), so what proof do you have that your particular god invented the universe?

          October 4, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
        • ME II

          @Lawrence of Arabia,

          "At least the claims of Christianity do not require you to redefine words or throw away common sense."

          The Word Became Flesh
          "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1)

          Trinity, Trune, fully man and fully god, transubstantiation, etc., etc....

          October 4, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
        • Cristeros for Satan

          "Just because miracles are not common place today, doesn't mean that God wouldn't choose to use them in the past."
          .
          As we advance, ignorance takes more of a back seat. Supersti tion/miracles/stories of dragons etc thrived in more ignorant times.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
        • Cristeros for Satan

          Lets put it into persepctive:
          .
          Lawrence of Arabia

          Sam Stone,
          Fairies and pink dragons defy explaination as to how they occur, since by definition, they are an intrusion into the natural order of things, but they do make sense if you know the whole story.
          Once again, don't base your understanding of how things used to be on how things are now. Just because fairies and pink dragons are not common place today, doesn't mean that fairies and pink dragons didnt exist in the past.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Tallulah13,
          It would be too much for me to type the discussion here in sound bytes, but check this out, and take it for what it's worth...

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phVakkGSle0&feature=player_detailpage

          October 4, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)"

          So what you are really saying is that your imagined God lives outside logic and reason. So why do you keep making sad attempts at using logic and reason to explain your God Larry? You try to build a logical and reasonable argument then you go and thrown in something like that which says "You cannot refute my logic and reasoning because I have just brought in an illogical and unreasonable being to win the argument!"

          That is what is so frustrating when discussing this because what you should say right at the start is "I believe in a God who doesn't have to follow any rules or logic or reason, can't be disproved even if scientists had 100% of the universal explanations for existence, and I will continue to believe regardless of what anyone or anything says". It would at least end the stalemate of debate. I come here hoping to have reasonable discussions with folk who like logic and reason and just havn't figured out how they have been lied to and manipulated by organized religion yet. The numbers of logical and reasonable people is on the rise in spite of the campaign against science and facts.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Cristeros for Satan
          Regarding fairies and pink dragons, I remain agnostic.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
        • sam stone

          larry....you say that christianity does not require a suspension of common sense, then talk about miracles, which are a suspension of common sense

          funny stuff you got there

          October 4, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Larry, why does a first cause have to be a "god" that is even aware of us? Why can't we be the unintentional byproduct of some process initiated so long ago across the universe (or whatever contains the universe) that no one or thing cares about? You appeal to "Paul" – a character in The Babble I assume. Now all you have to do is prove the provenance of The Babble and what your man Paul is alleged to have said. So far you are very short on acts. As expected.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Just the Facts,
          Say what you will about God, there is not a shovel big enough to dig yourself out of the whole that you dug for yourself when you said:

          "Not a single thing in the entire universe can claim eternal life"

          In that one statement, you are admitting that the universe is not eternal. You must agree with every ounce of reason that something cannot create itself.

          Therefore, a supernatural explaination for our existence must be true.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
        • Joey

          Well Lawrence you can't dig yourself out of the hole you made when you claimed that everything has to be created. So either god is nothing, or something else created it. Oh wait, you just get to claim that god can do anything he wants must be nice to be able to just make stuff up.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          ""Not a single thing in the entire universe can claim eternal life" So if this is true, that the universe is not eternal, and knowing that nothing can create itself... Doesn't that force you to conclude there is a God?"

          Do you know where an electron goes when it moves from one side of an atom to the other? I'd be surprised if you did because even the brightest minds have not confirmed that it even goes anywhere, it may wink out of existence and at that very same moment a new electron has been created on the other side of the atom. My point is that we know so very little about our universe that I can say "at the moment nothing we know of is eternal" while at the same time understanding that the universe could be like that electron and wink in and out of existence in some constant renewal, from singularity to singularity and back again, but because we only see a tiny fragment of the process we can only make sloppy assumptions as to the mechanics involved.

          You and other religious persons don't seem to want to do any of the work involved in finding answers and instead want to sit around making petty assumptions about how close to the center of the universe you are, and how special your position in it will be and how you and your loved ones get eternal bliss while 2/3rds of the rest of the planet need to prepare for eternal torment at the hands of your malignant God.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Joey,
          Do not put words into my mouth. I didn't say that everything must be created. I said that every effect has a cause. God is not an effect, and I used a logical argument to defend that statement.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
        • Joey

          I will agree that you put forth an argument, however, it was not the least bit logical. It basically goes like this:

          I don't know who the universe started, therefore, Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Just the Facts,
          But your description explains the observed actions of an electron within an atom. It says nothing about where that electron came from in the first place.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          We are now witnessing the believer sleight-of-hand trick trying to equate "supernatural" with "god." I guess they think we are too stupid to know that there are definitions that do not require a god.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Joey,
          You don't know the rules for making a logical argument, do you? You may not like the conclusion, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a logically sound one.

          And, I never said "I don't know" how the universe came into being – scientists say that. And they have caniption fits whenever Christians speak in absolutes. In a field supposedly dedicated to finding answers, they sure get mad when one is proposed to them.

          Besides, "origins" isn't scientific anyway... It isn't observable, testable, or repeatable. So, although folks can lay down mathematics on the idea of origins, if it isn't observable, testable, repeatable, etc., then it isn't scientifically valid.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Hot Air,
          How is that slight of hand? "God" fits into the category of "supernatural."
          The problem is, most people can't admit to anything that can violate the natural order – the supernatural.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Say what you will about God, there is not a shovel big enough to dig yourself out of the whole that you dug for yourself when you said: "Not a single thing in the entire universe can claim eternal life" In that one statement, you are admitting that the universe is not eternal. You must agree with every ounce of reason that something cannot create itself."

          I don't have to dig out of anywhere Larry, you are the one making assumptions about my statement. I don't believe there is a single qauntum quark that is eternal but I do believe that they are constantly renewed, much like I believe that the universe has always existed in some form, not this single star or atom, but life from death and vice versus, life begets death and death provides the material needed for new life. Much like a dying star doesn't actually die but becomes the ingredients for new life, new planets, new humans in fact as both you and I and everyone on the planet are walking talking sacks of star dust. I believe this is much the same in the quntum universe where one energy can be born, live and die to be reborn as another quark or anti-quark. The universe, relative to ourselves, is just a larger example of this constant renewal where no energy is ever actually lost, it's just moved and reused.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Is god and/or religion observable, testable or repeatable? Nope! Well ok, you can observe gullible people repeatedly giving money and time to god cults that have not been tested for truth, but that's as good as it gets.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "But your description explains the observed actions of an electron within an atom. It says nothing about where that electron came from in the first place." That is because it didn't have to come from anywhere, it may have always existed in some form or another, it's energy being a part of larger, or smaller whole.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          It's sleight (not slight!) because you want us to fixate on one definition of supernatural that implies a god, without having any proof to make the connection, when there are other definitions that do not involve a god or magic, that simply mean we don't know.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Just the Facts,
          Thank you for your honest answer...
          But I must ask you, on what do you base your assumption that things act now in the same way that they always have?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Larry, you continue to go off on tangents. What factual, objective, verifiable and independent evidence do you, or any other believer, have to definitively and conclusively proof that a first cause is a god as portrayed in The Babble? Either you have such proof and can provide it, or you must concede that you don't. So far, you have not presented a single bit of evidence.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
        • Lawrence of Arabia

          Hot Air,
          Of course there's evidence. But it's hard to type it all on this forum designed for "sound bytes."
          Watch the video I posted earlier.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:26 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "what do you base your assumption that things act now in the same way that they always have?"

          I base my current understanding on the law of conservation of energy where energy is neither created nor destroyed, but changes form through phase transition. That combined with what we are now learning about quantum mechanics and dark matter gives us a believable, testable answer for where all that other missing energy very well may be. Up until now scientists had to wrestle with this law and the fact that the numbers did not add up but we had no where else to put this stored or missing energy that we can see and weigh based on observable gravitational fields. I'm not even suggesting that I KNOW this for certain, I just believe that it is the current best explanation for our universe, especially with such inconsistant God theorys and no single universal being weighing in on which brand of deity is correct so either he wants many to be misled by false religions or he is not able to prove himself to mankind which would pretty much preclude him from being called a God. To make a God assmption with only the current universe as evidence is tantamount to finding what looks like horse droppings in your yard and assuming you had just been visited by an invisible flying unicorn. The far more logical answer would be that somehow a horse got in there and did his business...

          October 4, 2013 at 2:31 pm |
        • Just the Facts Ma'am...

          "Of course there's evidence." If they had evidence they wouldn't have to have faith. So which is it Larry? Do you have evidence and thus no need for faith? Or must you along with every other religious person on the planet rely on faith to be believers?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
        • ME II

          @Lawrence of Arabia,
          "1)Every finite and contingent ent.ity has a cause.
          2)An uncaused effect cannot exist.
          3)A causal loop cannot exist.
          4)A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
          5)Therefore, a First Cause (something that is not an effect of something else) must exist."

          1) Either you haven't shown this to be true or it is a 'rhetorical tautology' around a "contingent enti.ty" and means nothing, i.e. if a contingent enti.ty is defined as an enti.ty which is dependent on something else, or has be caused, then by definition there would be no uncaused "contingent enti.ties". However, you have not shown that non-contingent enti.ties do or do not exist.

          2) Again a rhetorical tautology. If an effect is defined as having been caused, then this statement contains no meaning. If you are claiming that no uncaused event or uncaused thing exists, then you must explain your how your god exists. If, however, you are claiming that they do exist then why must it be a god or even supernatural.

          I could go on...

          October 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          I attentively watched over 13 minutes of a delusional believer spouting off about god and jesus. He did not present a single fact about the existence of any god or a divine jesus, nor did he indicate that he would be. His diatribe is about "why jesus and not some other equally unproven alleged god" based on the assumption that god and jesus (and other deities) exist. Nothing he said answers the question that Larry, and all other believers, have spectacularly failed at answering.

          Larry, do you realize how easy it would be to post links to debates where Ravi and his ilk get destroyed by Dawkins, Krauss, Shermer et al? Do you really want to get into that compet!tion when you can't even establish the most basic foundation for your beliefs, beliefs that without evidence can only be classed as delusions?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
        • tallulah13

          Larry, I don't have 44 minutes to waste watching a sermon. I tried, but he just kept rambling about other things. So I googled his name and discovered that your "source" is not a doctor or a scientist, but an evangelical christian apologist, putting him in a category of one not to be trusted. Rhetoric isn't proof. It's simply spin.

          Now please, again. What is your PROOF that your god is the one that created the universe.

          October 4, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          It appears that Larry has conceded that there is no evidence for his god and is now engaged in a love-in with Topher. That should be entertaining. . .

          October 4, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      No, what American Catholics are happy about, or should be, is that the pope is bringing Christianity into the dialogue with secularism in a way that doesn't alienate the people he would like to introduce to Christ via grace and mercy AND that he is doing so while maintaining the firm teachings the Church holds on moral matters.

      In other words, it isn't about your sin. It's about His grace.

      October 4, 2013 at 11:47 am |
      • bostontola

        I like this pope and I'm an American atheist.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:57 am |
        • HotAirAce

          Me too! The more public religion is, the more it will be seen for the crock of crap it is. And the more we can ask "What was Pope-A-Dope's role in priestly pedophilia (how many children did he abuse?) and why won't he release all information about child abuse and the coverup of crimes within the RCC?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          How many children have been abused by priest where you live hot air? Now, how many by public school teachers?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Too many in both cases, but that doesn't excuse the RCC. Why won't your leader turn over all information to the relevant authorities? How many children did he abuse? What is he hiding?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
        • OKfine

          BD in Ireland for some priests it was like alcoholism. one was too many but a hundred was not enough, not that the Vatican gave a damn, omerta was ordered.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
        • ME II

          @bostontola,
          This Pope is definitely better than many previous ones. Focusing on issues that most can agree on is a great approach.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
        • Sara

          Bill,

          "How many children have been abused by priest where you live hot air? Now, how many by public school teachers?"

          Before you ask that you have to find out the ratio of Catholic priests to public school teachers. Where I live that's about 300 to 1. You could start by doing your math on whatever figues you find in your local area. However, you should really also add the percent of kids who ever have contact with a Catholic priest (maybe 25%) and the relative number of contact hours (at most 20:1 compared to public schools). So all in all you're going to want to multiply the number of abuse cases by priests by a factor of at least a few hundred to represent the actual risk ratio for spending time with an individual priest vs. a teacher.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          Sara, you can set the parameters any way you choose. What I'd like to see from people who continually default to the priest abuse scandal when any discussion of the Church comes up is objective comparative data that shows who and where children area actually being harmed the most. It is never posted but the diatribes never abate.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
        • Joey

          Bill how can anyone post the data when the Catholic Church has spent decades and millions of dollars trying to cover it all up?

          October 4, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
        • Sara

          I agree people are wrong to claim priests are especially dangerous without any data. But it is equally wrong to claim that a comparison of numbers between priests and public school teachers is meaningful unless you are ready to do a lot of work to make those comparisons really equivalent. If I have one child in my town molested by a teacher this month, and another by a priest, statistically the priests are doing much worse given the relative number in each polulation. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but it is what such data would mean

          October 4, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          Joey, there's data out there. You're a smart boy. You can find it.

          Sara, I'm not in any way trying to defend or deflect a discussion on child abuse or even of the participation of clergy in it. All I'm asking for is data. Until then, I agree with you, it's dirty pool to castigate one group over another

          October 4, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
        • midwest rail

          "... there's data out there...." Yes, yes there is – all incomplete, and we all know why.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          Bill, name another organization that is known to have a massive pedophile problem and covered it up and still has not "come clean.". I know of none. If you name them, and your claim proves to be true, I will make the same statements about them and their leaders as I have a about the RCC and at least the last three Pope-A-Dopes. But no matter what any other organization has done, known or unknown, you and the RCC cannot hide behind them.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
      • ME II

        @Bill Deacon,
        I don't know how one can talk about grace without also talking about sin, without one the other is unnecessary, but the shift in focus antagonizes fewer people, which is good, or at least relatively better anyway.

        October 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          Agreed ME II. It's about emphasis. The old saying is "No one cares what you know until they they that you care"

          October 4, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          "...know that you care"

          October 4, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
      • tallulah13

        I think they're just angry that the pope is embracing the whole not judging thing that Christ preached.

        October 4, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
  8. Richard Cranium

    As usual, 23,000 new atheists assault this dump at once in a feverish attempt to distract u until dodo can delete the posts that expose her gigantic touche. Simple reality dodo and I ain't going nowhere.
    Ks from the reality of dodo! Busted again, hoghead! Lol

    October 4, 2013 at 11:39 am |
  9. Where is your God now?

    You are at a German “sparkle party”. You are wearing your party pants. You are ready to dancy dance. It is a hard-core German sparkle party and you are wearing your rubber boots. The music is pulsating and it feels good to dance. You notice a familiar face standing at the bar. You dance over to her as fancy as you please in your polished rubber boots. You bend low to smell her perfume and say hello. It is your father.

    October 4, 2013 at 11:29 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      France

      October 4, 2013 at 11:34 am |
      • Apple Bush

        Richard, your replies have explained a lot. Thank you.

        October 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
  10. bostontola

    “On the two issues that have prompted some pulpit thundering, same-se x marriage and abortion, Catholics are right in line, or even a little ahead, of their non-Catholic neighbors,”

    It appears as though American Catholics are American. I'm not as sure about Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Their anti-secular stances, desire to restrict rights of minorities that live counter to their religious rules, their as.sault on science and education, etc., not very American.

    October 4, 2013 at 11:27 am |
  11. Where is your God now?

    You wake up feeling amazing with Marie next to you. She finally spent the night. You can make out the curve of her buttocks beneath the thin sheet. Your groin reacts and you press against her, fitting neatly in the begging crevice. She smells like flowers and honey. You throb with anticipation and she moans in anticipation. You reach for a condom, but realize to your dismay that your dog is busy chewing and has something stuck in his teeth…

    October 4, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      You should have been looking for God before you tried to satisfy your lust, then you wouldn't need a condom, or a vaccine.

      October 4, 2013 at 11:27 am |
      • Apple Bush

        This is not a story about me.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:29 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          There are no stories about you though are there Apple?

          October 4, 2013 at 11:34 am |
        • Apple Bush

          I don't have a dog Bill. I am allergic.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:44 am |
      • sam stone

        why is lust bad, bill?

        October 4, 2013 at 11:40 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Because lust is not love. Lust turns the other into an object to be used for self gratification. It demeans the value of the other, making them little more than a utensil for pleasure. As such, it is not a life affirming approach, but one aimed towards death.

          Love values the other and impels us to give our true self to the other. Thus love is life affirming and healthy, intimacy flows from it which elevates the individual in the freedom to love as well as bonds the couple in that mutual exchange of giving and receiving their deepest selves, one to another.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:53 am |
        • Sara

          If all you had was love, there would be no se.x. It's perfectly normal to combine the two...that's what leads to little babies in a happy family.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:57 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Right Sara! But you're reading ahead in the next chapter. LOL

          October 4, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I like that definition of love vs. lust , Bill.
          Now, can you explain to me how two people of the same gender should be prevented from sharing in the mutual exchange of giving and receiving their deepest selves, one to another?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Sorry – "why", not "how".

          October 4, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          Yes, Doc. Because same seex gratification is no different from opposite seex gratification that uses birtt control. It isn't about what you propose it is (the giving of one to another) it is actually nothing more than co-operative masturbation. It is a closed loop that has no life affirmation to it. It is lust packaged as love. It perverts the psychological, emotional and spiritual components of the seexual identiity of one or the other partners and though it may present a gratifying orgasm, it does not create anything sustainable outside of itself. The only thing that keeps such a relationship going is the promise of a return to the satisfaction of the lust impulse. That's why the Catholic Church doesn't just oppose gaay marriage, we do not believe in the possibility of it and that will not ever change no matter what the courts say.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
        • Sara

          Bill,

          " it is actually nothing more than co-operative masturbation"

          Except that it isn't. I'm not going to dig around in the research right now, but there's a ton of data out there on how se.x brings two people together. Most people who have had se.x understand from experience how this is different from masturbation. Humans appear to have evolved to bond through se.x as a way of brining couples together for mutual protection and to raise any kids that might result. Whether or not kids result (sterility, old age, same se.x relationship), se.x yields a bond in the same way. Hormones like oxytocin are heavily involved, and failing to engage in the behaviors that release these hormones is a pretty good way to damage the pair bonding experience.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
        • ME II

          @Bill Deacon,
          How would that differ from heteros that are barren or impotent or simply too old to reproduce?

          No court in the US would force churches to marry people. They may force the state to marry people, but the freedom of religion would prevent them from forcing the churches.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          ME II Because the basic relation between opposite seex partners is still properly ordered whatever the fruit of their union produces and the basic relation between same seex partners is still disordered, no matter the psychological bonds they fabricate

          October 4, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
        • Sara

          Ah, "ordered"...I love it when a group can just make up a word to cover up the fact they just mean what they considered "good" and "bad". Well I think having more than two kids is disordered as is living in a home with more bedrooms than people. I think owning an SUV is disordered, and failing to volunteer time at least once a week. I think that anyone who ignores science and logic in the face of their religion is expressing disordered behavior. Heck, all the world is disordered but me and...well, anyone really...

          October 4, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
        • Sara

          Oh, and limiting se.x with your spouse because of some 2000 year old book...REALLY disordered.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
        • ME II

          @Bill Deacon,
          How is it "disordered"?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm |
      • Cristeros for Satan

        Nothing wrong with lust....quite natural.

        October 4, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Mid-town

      October 4, 2013 at 11:33 am |
  12. Sara

    American Catholics Support Head in the Sand Policy Regarding Belong to a Church with Irrational and Unethical Positions.

    For 90% of US Catholics, belonging to the church is about laziness rather than beliefs. If the average US Catholic were really to measure their own personal beliefs against the various options, most would find they range somewhere from Episcopal to Unitarian. Why do so many stick around when they disagree with the beliefs? Why do they continue give their money? Unless they are actively working to change things from within, which most are not, it is out of laziness and narrow self-interest (nice place for a wedding, pretty communion dresses for the kids) over caring about vital international aid issues and healthcare or gender equality. Find out what you really believe, who else agrees and will help you develop your ideas, and vote with your feet.

    http://www.selectsmart.com/religion/

    October 4, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      Not sure where you get the 90% statistic from but I think you're general point is well taken. There are a number of Catholics (CINO's "cultural Catholics", "raised Catholic" whatever) for whom the faith is merely a comfortable pattern. There is a core group of devout people though, who are encouraged by the path pope Francis is showing. After the example of Mary the Virgin Mother, the Church should place a primary focus on the saving grace of God through the salvific sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. At which point the teachings of the Church are put into appropriate relief.

      In the same manner that the Church cannot realistically expect the world to accept our teaching on moral and social issues without recognition of our perspective, the world and "lazy Catholics" must eventually realize that there are foundational truths which are immutable to the faith.

      October 4, 2013 at 11:13 am |
      • JWT

        Just as the catholic church, and all churches, must realize that their teachings apply only to their members. e.g. The catholic church is opped to gay marriage means solely that catholics should not engage in gay marriage – it is perfectly fine for everyone else.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:42 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          I actually agree, in a sense. I think if any government want to create a system of benefits for it's citizens and call that marriage, it's ok with me. It's not a sacramental marriage and I as a Catholic won't acknowledge it, but have at it.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:56 am |
  13. doobzz

    As long as he keeps tap dancing around same sex marriage, abortion and birth control, it distracts the sheep from his continuation of the conspiracy to hide perophiles in the clergy.

    October 4, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • doobzz

      That would be "pedophiles".

      October 4, 2013 at 10:56 am |
      • Bill Deacon

        So what do you think his motive for DE-emphasising those issues could be?

        October 4, 2013 at 11:16 am |
        • Sara

          I suspect it's two pronged. First, he probably genuinely does believe they've been over-emphasized. Second, he can't but be aware of how many people have been driven from the church by these issues. A third possibility is that, on some issues at least, he may be planning some changes and that de-emphasis would be a first step to acceptance.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:19 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          I prefer to take him at his word. He sees people hurting in the world. He believes the mission of the Church is to share the Gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected. Then once she has you out of spiritual triage, she'll instruct you on the best way to live.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:22 am |
        • OKfine

          Lets see, the Jacksonville Jaguars just ran a promotion giving out free beer if you bought a ticket to the next home game. You have to consider the slight shift by the pope maybe an effort to keep bums in the pews.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:32 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          It's natural that you would think that way. You're a materialist with a "bottom line" thought pattern. The Church looks to Jesus though who lost most of his disciples over the bread of life discourse. She prays for those who would say "Where shall we go? You have the words of life"

          October 4, 2013 at 11:36 am |
        • doobzz

          It keeps people talking about those issues and not the conspiracy of which he currently is the leader. If people are arguing about same sex marriage or birth control, they aren't looking at the pedophile coverup.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:38 am |
        • Sara

          Bill, are you responding to OKFine? For the record, I'm not a materialist and neither are many atheists.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:39 am |
        • OKfine

          You are absolutely right if you mean I can spot a scam that has been perpetrated by a whole lot clergy that never did an honest days work in their lives. Amazing that the scam has gone on as long as it has. BTW did you happen to glance at the first public annual report from the Vatican bank, it did very well profit not prophet wise, but they have still not managed to clear up all the scandals.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:47 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Yes Sara, that was at Okfine. You and I seem to be able to hold a reasonable discourse

          October 4, 2013 at 11:59 am |
  14. Where is your God now?

    Your husband takes you to the company Christmas party. You have long been jealous of his very attractive co-worker Genevieve, and your jealous imagination suspects there is a spark between them. You dress to the nines and look great. The moment comes to say hello to her. She is beautiful, charming and smells intoxicating. You break a heal just as you reach to shake her hand. You spill your drink on both Genevieve and your husband. They look at each other and giggle, holding the gaze a bit too long.

    October 4, 2013 at 10:50 am |
    • Bill Deacon

      What? You think people of faith don't experience marital infidelity and retain their belief? Come on Apple, pull it together man.

      October 4, 2013 at 11:15 am |
      • Sara

        I couldn't figure out what that commenter was talking about. You actually have a translation?

        October 4, 2013 at 11:16 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Near as i can tell it's a copy and paste from a novella Apple Bush has in a file somewhere. He thinks that belief in God should mean evil doesn't happen.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:24 am |
        • Apple Bush

          Bill you are incorrect. I don't believe that.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:26 am |
      • Apple Bush

        I re-read my post and nope, I never said that. Sorry.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:24 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Then stop posting your incessant drivel

          October 4, 2013 at 11:28 am |
        • Apple Bush

          No thanks.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:35 am |
        • OKfine

          No BD why not stop yours that never criticize the damage your ugly RCC religion has done through out history. You may just post a picture of you kissing the popes butt, everyone will understand your position.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:37 am |
        • doobzz

          "Then stop posting your incessant drivel"

          LOLOLOLOL!

          October 4, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      Route 66

      October 4, 2013 at 11:29 am |
  15. Reality # 2

    What Francis should have said:

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

    Added information before making your next move:

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
    See also: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/opinion/bolan-se-xual-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

    And from:

    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about (even though is becoming a major cause of throat cancer)," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (Maybe it should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

    Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

    The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

    – (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
    – (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

    Followed by:

    One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
    Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
    The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
    Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
    IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

    Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

    October 4, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      Dodo, we know can't and ur mother couldn't and ur daughter won't, based on ur parenting, but many women can obstain! U wretch! I no, phuck god

      October 4, 2013 at 11:31 am |
  16. Sports Fan

    Dodgers 1-0

    October 4, 2013 at 10:44 am |
  17. Tony

    He's not saying anything new. The church's position hasn't changed, he just doesn't want to talk about it because the church's position is unpopular.
    Does anyone else think he's either pandering to the masses or being a bit dishonest in putting these issues on the back-burner?

    October 4, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      It is no different than the Mormons and their PR shifts about dark skinned and/or gay people.

      October 4, 2013 at 10:43 am |
      • Sara

        The mormons did change their position on the current status of dark skinned people, allowing them as priests and moral equals. But they are still seen as cursed and, yeah, that's downplayed like the gay issue. These tricks might buy these churches a 5 or 10 year delay in their demise.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • Sara

      I think the choices are a) pander and lose US members gradually or b) don't pander and lose them quickly. The option of actually giving up silly, outdated ideas is apparently not going to occur to anyone. The priest celibacy issue is the only item even on the agenda, but without female clergy, birth control and acceptance of gay relationships they haven't got a hope in the modern world. And we can forget opennes on abortion, stem cell research and let people make their own decisions as to how to die.

      October 4, 2013 at 11:13 am |
      • Bill Deacon

        I think he is speaking like a father who is saying "I'm not going to tell you this again"

        October 4, 2013 at 11:17 am |
        • Sara

          Do you mean he's saying

          "I'm not going to tell you again these acts are immoral"

          or

          "I'm not go ing to tell you again that we shouldn't focus on this stuff"

          ?

          October 4, 2013 at 11:22 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          He has specifically said that the teachings on these issues are settled. So, yes, he is saying we've already been taught right from wrong and it is not negotiable.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:25 am |
        • Sara

          Bill, what I was getting at is that the population in the church changes as people join and kids become adults. Saying we aren't going to discuss it any more indicates either that the young somehow need to hear the teaching less or that there was an error in the original emphasis.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          I don't think the pope has said that young people don't need to hear it. I think what he has said is that they need to hear the first part of the message before they hear the philosophies built on it.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:38 am |
        • Sara

          Bill,

          So he's not so much saying I'm not going to tell you this again as "I'm not going to go over this repeatedly. Focus on the fundamentals and if we get that far we can discuss this stuff." Something like that?

          October 4, 2013 at 11:41 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Precisely

          October 4, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
        • HotAirAce

          If this is about building upon a foundation it would help if a single believer of any faith could prove that any god exists.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
        • Tony

          Bill,
          They've both (gay marriage and abortion) been taught from the pulpit for centuries alongside the "basics" of Catholicism. I'll even go a step further and say that a case can probably be made for both issues being a basic tenant of Catholicism.
          Why would that change at this point if not for it being unpopular?

          October 4, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          I'm not sure what you're saying tony but yes, abortion and gaay marriage have been taught against in the Catholic church for centuries and they are, if not dogmatic, certainly essential, teachings within the church. They will not be changed for the sake of fashion, whim or popular trend.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
        • Tony

          Bill,
          I was responding to your response to Sara above. "I'm not going to go over this repeatedly. Focus on the fundamentals and if we get that far we can discuss this stuff." Something like that" and you said you agreed. I'm saying that gay marriage and abortion ARE fundamental to the church, so why focus on some fundamentals and not others?
          My contention is that it's been a focal point of church politics for centuries, and it is only now, when the tide of public opinion is turning, that the church isn't going to focus on it more.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
  18. Doc Vestibule

    Sane people are in favour of birth control.
    "Be fruitful and multiply" is bad advice when population exceeds food supply.

    October 4, 2013 at 10:39 am |
    • Sara

      Most US Catholics are in favor of birth control. They are just too lazy and selfish to take the actions necessary move religions and make a real statement that would help people in developing countries get the aid they need.

      October 4, 2013 at 11:02 am |
      • Bill Deacon

        What most Catholic favor is chastiity. Do you know what that is?

        October 4, 2013 at 11:18 am |
        • Colin

          Chastisy is a status that can only realistically be maintained by (i) the old, (ii) those with an abnormally low s.ex drive or (iii) those whose s.exual desires are sufficiently frowned upon by society that they cannot safely engage in them – e.g. pedophiles

          This explains, to a large extent, why it is viewed favorably by the RCC. IF Catholic priests had a normal, healthy s.ex drive, losing one's virginity would be a sacrament.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:28 am |
        • Sara

          I think the Catholic notion of chasti.ty is in conflict with modern research findings of the benefits of se.x within a relationship. This sin't to say that moderation isn't important (I think most non-Catholics would agree), but that the degree of moderation recommended by the church is not in agreement with the research.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:29 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          You confuse chastiity with abstinence. It's a common error given the skewed hyper seexualization of the modern culture. Chastiity means the proper and respectful placement of seexual behavior for the condition of one's life.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:31 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          I'll take the health risk from lower than normal seexual activity over those from greater than normal any day, thank you.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:33 am |
        • Ungodly Discipline

          Tell that to the little boys and girls that have been sexually abused by Catholics priests on a regular basis. Catholics are sick.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:34 am |
        • Sara

          Bill, were you talking to me or Colin? I don't think I confused them.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:34 am |
        • Sara

          Bill,

          "I'll take the health risk from lower than normal seexual activity over those from greater than normal any day, thank you."

          Let's look at this just from the standpoint of se.x within marriage. Do you agree that Catholics following the church's teaching will have less se.x than married non-Catholics following the churches teaching? If so, what health risks are you worried about and how would they outweigh the psychological benefits of the more frequent se.x?

          October 4, 2013 at 11:37 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Sara, I think Colin is confusing chastiity with abstinence. Sorry for the confusion. I'm confused about your question. You seem to pose two married couples who both follow the Church's teachings. I think their health results would be similar. But when we enter teh realm of abortion on demand, free artificial birth control, seex outside of marriage and gaay marriage, we've left the realm of faithful married couples in chaste relationships behind.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:42 am |
        • doobzz

          "I'll take the health risk from lower than normal seexual activity over those from greater than normal any day, thank you."

          You must be the healthiest mofo on the planet, then.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:46 am |
        • Sara

          Except that a lot of research now supportsthe argument that fairly frequent se.x brings couples (married and unmarried) closer and builds stronger relationships. The psychological impact inside marriage of excessively limiting se.x could be quite harmful, and the health impact of accidental pregnancy by using imprecise methods for occassional se.x are much higher than the affects of any form of birth control.

          Outside of marriage/unions we many be in more agreement. While we likely disagree on the necessity of a marriage to have a long term relationship, I agree that the risks of casual se.x outside of relationships are significant. Further, recent research indicates that having multiple partners at the same time is a much greater epidemiological risk than serial monogamy, even when you have the same total number of partners (see studies comparing the spread of AIDS in subsaharan africa, scandinavia and thailand). For most people, and for society as a whole, it seems that the safest compromise is a limited number of lifetime partners in relationships that extend for significant periods of time but which include a healthy, spontaneous se.x life.

          October 4, 2013 at 11:54 am |
        • Bill Deacon

          Sara, just to clarify, a chaste marriage doesn't mean one in which seexual intimacy is limited. If you read John Paul's encyclical Theology of the Body, you will see that the Church advocates deep and freely given intimacies between spouses. The line of chastiity is crossed when one partner dehumanizes the other into a mere object for self gratification. This is a perversion of conjugal bliss which interferes with the psychological and emotional benefits you describe and turns the seex act into little more than state sanctioned prostiitution or enslavement. When couples show up to marriage counseling with intimacy problems, you can almost always be sure than one or the other has departed from the proper perspective and begun using their spouse or using seex as a bargaining chip for power or control in the relationship.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Bill
          I think that much of the "skewed hyper seexualization of the modern culture" is a backlash against the skewed, hyper demonization of s.ex by religious groups for hundreds of years, most especially by puritan groups in America.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
        • Sara

          Bill, I'm aware of the churches position. The problem is that without limiting frequency and spontaneity you are likely to end up with more than the desired number of children without birth control. This is not a trivial issue for individuals, couples, society or the planet. You can't have it both ways.

          October 4, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          No you can't have it both ways Sara.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
        • Sara

          Then in today's world you either get reduced intimacy or overpopulation, unwanted children and poverty.

          On the plus side it should be noted you get many of the bonding benefits of inter.course by cuddling (ideally with little clothing). Is this acceptable for both same and opposite se.x couples? From what you've said so far it would seem the church should have no objections to chaste same se.x couples, as they would beno different than a sterile or elderly hete.ero couple.

          October 4, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
        • Bill Deacon

          Well, now you're getting out of the area of erotic love and into the area of filial love. I have several male friend with whom I share filial love. We hug, we pray together, we tell each other we love one another, give gifts etc. We aren't "lovers" and I can only anticipate the derision I'll get from posting these facts. But this kind of love between same seex people is perfectly acceptable and healthy. When we see Scripture that says ".. the Apostle whom Jesus loved..." we see this type of love modeled, although some have perverted that to imply Jesus may have been gaay. We see the same type of records throughout history of men and women loving same seex people without taking it to the level that gaays are striving to have codified today. In fact, I would argue that a big issue in the mental health of many people is the lack of well bounded, supportive, loving, same seex relationships.

          October 4, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
        • Sara

          Let's be more specific then, Bill. How are you with two people of the same se.x living together as pair bonded and sharing a bed if they aren't doing what you would consider se.x?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
        • Sara

          And since you have expressed before that it is OK for post menopausal women to have se.x at their discretion, is some level of discretionary se.x OK for same se.x couples? I'm assuming not, based on your previous statement that it was not "ordered". Would you care to expand on that?

          October 4, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
  19. Dyslexic doG

    the word of god is unarguable, undeniable, unchangeable and everyone must obey otherwise you go to he11 ... until someone in the church decides they want to change it, and then it's OK.

    god gets overruled again. 🙂

    October 4, 2013 at 10:32 am |
  20. Colin

    Dear Catholics:
    God here.

    I don’t care what Pope Francis says, nor how American Catholics react to it, because, you see, I do not exist. The concept of a 13,700,00,000 year old being, capable of creating the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies, monitoring simultaneously the thoughts and actions of the 7 billion human beings on this planet is ludicrous.

    Second, if I did, I would have left you a book a little more consistent, timeless and independently verifiable than the collection of Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology you call the Bible. Hell, I bet you cannot tell me one thing about any of its authors or how and why it was edited over the Centuries, yet you cite them for the most extraordinary of claims.

    Thirdly, when I sent my “son” (whatever that means, given that I am god and do not mate) to Earth, he would have visited the Chinese, Ja.panese, Europeans, Russians, sub-Saharan Africans, Australian Aboriginals, Mongolians, Polynesians, Micronesians, Indonesians and native Americans, not just a few Jews. He would also have exhibited a knowledge of something outside of the Iron Age Middle East.

    Fourthly, I would not spend my time hiding, refusing to give any tangible evidence of my existence, and then punish those who are smart enough to draw the natural conclusion that I do not exist by burning them forever. That would make no sense to me, given that I am the one who elected to withhold all evidence of my existence in the first place.

    Fifthly, in the same vein, I would not make about 5% of the human population gay, then punish them for being that way. In fact, I wouldn’t care about how humans have $ex at all, given that I created all of the millions of millions of species on the planet, all of whom are furiously reproducing all the time. Human $ex would be of no interest to me, given that I can create Universes. Has it ever occurred to you that your obsession with making rules around human $ex is an entirely human affair?

    Sixth, I would have smited all traditional Catholics, (and evangelicals and fundamentalists) long before this. You people drive me nuts. You are so small minded and yet you speak with such false authority. Many of you still believe in the talking snake nonsense from Genesis. I would kill all of you for that alone and burn you for an afternoon (burning forever is way too barbaric even for me to contemplate).

    Seventh, the whole idea of members of one species on one planet surviving their own physical deaths to “be with me” is utter, mind-numbing nonsense. Grow up. You will die. Get over it. I did. Hell, at least you had a life. I never even existed in the first place.

    Eighth, I do not read your minds, or “hear your prayers” as you euphemistically call it. There are 7 billion of you. Even if only 10% prayed once a day, that is 700,000,000 prayers. This works out at 8,000 prayers a second – every second of every day. Meanwhile I have to process the 100,000 of you who die every day between heaven and hell. Dwell on the sheer absurdity of that for a moment.

    Ninthly, had I existed, do you really think my representation on Earth would have such a history of corruption, retardation of science, financial misdeeds, political intrigue, outright criminal behavior and $exual misconduct, including pedophilia, as the Vatican does. I mean, come on! As a CEO, I would be fired for allowing my organization to run amok century after century.

    Finally, the only reason you even consider believing in me is because of where you were born. Had you been born in India, you would likely believe in the Hindu gods, if born in Tibet, you would be a Buddhist. Every culture that has ever existed has had its own god(s) and they always seem to favor that particular culture, its hopes, dreams and prejudices. What, do you think we all exist? If not, why only yours?

    Look, let’s be honest with ourselves. There is no god. Believing in me was fine when you thought the World was young, flat and simple. Now we know how enormous, old and complex the Universe is.

    Move on – get over me. I did.

    God

    October 4, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      thanks Colin. I love your work.

      October 4, 2013 at 10:33 am |
      • Colin

        thank you, my spelling challanged, canine friend.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:29 am |
      • Gol

        dog, just change your name to "Lamprey" because all it seems you do is suck up to the copy/pasters on here.

        October 4, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Kind a worn out there dodo, don't ya think?

      October 4, 2013 at 11:36 am |
      • Brian from Family Guy

        not when the readers change every day. Don't like it, don't read it. Simple, isn't iit.

        October 4, 2013 at 11:44 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6
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.