home
RSS
November 17th, 2013
06:00 AM ET

When Pope Francis was put on laundry duty

Opinion by Chris Lowney

(CNN) - Every day, millions of Americans perform a task that epitomizes Pope Francis’ leadership style: They do the laundry.

I came to that somewhat surprising conclusion while talking to Jesuit priests who lived with the future Pope, then known as the Rev. Jorge Bergoglio, during the early 1980s. At the time, they were young Jesuit seminarians, and he was their “boss,” the rector of their 100-member community.

“He was very demanding when it came to studies,” one of them told me. “Do what you’re doing and do it well,” he used to say.

But the rector wanted the budding Jesuits to learn from people, not just from books.

“He used to send us to the opera and also have us clean the seminary bathrooms, because he wanted us to be adaptable to all kinds of situations.”

The seminarians all did volunteer work in poor communities, and one of them remembers Bergoglio telling them that “closeness to the poor is important for the formation of a priest’s heart.”

His mantra at the time was: “You’re going to learn from these people before you teach them anything,” the young Jesuits recall.

But when I asked these Jesuits what they learned from Bergoglio about being a good leader, the first memory they shared wasn’t a memorable speech or policy initiative.

Instead, they recalled Bergoglio doing the laundry.

Bergoglio used to stress that the seminarians were a family, and each person had to do his share of the chores to support the other family members.

Even though Bergoglio was their superior and carried a heavy administrative and teaching load, he also chipped in, taking the role of community laundry man.

Any seminarians awake at 5:30 in the morning could find him down in the basement, pitching bales of laundry into balky, 1980s-style industrial washing machines.

Why has that image stuck with them for more than three decades?

I suspect it’s because Bergoglio was embodying three vital leadership principles that every good parent instinctively understands, but that too many managers and executives forget.

Don’t tell us you value us, show us.

Many managers talk about respect, but treat team members more like tools than human beings. If you want to win the confidence and trust of your team, demonstrate in deeds that you value them.

Your corporate headquarters may not have a laundry machine, but I’m sure you can come up with some other way to demonstrate your concern for the team.

Don’t ask us to make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make.

The economic environment is harsh for organizations of all sorts. In order to survive, managers often ask sacrifices of their team members, whether it's shouldering a larger proportion of health insurance costs, working longer hours, or forgoing raises.

Most workers can accept these realities, except when managers exempt themselves from the sacrifices they ask of others. Too many chief executives, for example, get rewarded with lavish bonus increases even while slashing staff and cutting benefit packages for subordinates.

They ought to show some Bergoglio-style leadership. If they are going to ask the team to make sacrifices or take on extra chores, they ought to demonstrate their own willingness to sacrifice alongside them.

Send the message that you’re here to serve us, not that we’re here to serve you.

Soon after his election, Pope Francis said that “authentic power is service,” a simple yet profound vision. Those seminarians who remember him doing the laundry at 5:30 in the morning saw that vision in action: He is here to take care of our needs.

Too often, managers send the opposite signal. They squeeze information and labor from subordinates, as juice from a lemon. But they show little interest in recognizing and developing the talent and potential of their teams, or in ensuring that their basic needs are met.

Granted, doing the laundry will remain a pretty tiresome task, and family members will continue to strew dirty clothing here and there, oblivious to how it later becomes clean.

But launderers can take at least a little solace that they are disseminating some important lessons about life and leadership, and in at least a few cases, those lessons will be remembered.

Chris Lowney is a former Jesuit seminarian and one-time managing director of JP Morgan & Co. He is author of “Pope Francis: Why He Leads the Way He Leads.” The views expressed in this column belong to Lowney. 

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Argentina • Business • Catholic Church • Christianity • Ethics • Leaders • Pope Francis

soundoff (704 Responses)
  1. brian

    What does this article have to do with anything? It has as much credibility as my dog's bowel movement.

    November 17, 2013 at 8:56 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

      Wow – I'm not sure what you wanted to accomplish, but you definitely didn't persuade anyone.

      November 17, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
      • Tweedlederp

        pot meet kettle

        November 17, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
    • frank

      Bowel Movement
      Your dogs bowel movement has never helped a single person.

      November 17, 2013 at 9:22 pm |
      • Tweedlederp

        Neither has your religion. You take the game for the action, but you are wrong. Very wrong.

        November 17, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          Not true.

          November 17, 2013 at 9:38 pm |
        • Tweedlederp

          What words of mine are not true? You do not say. Perhaps you'd like to clarify?

          November 17, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          Yeah, this is easy. Most of the churches feed the poor, and teach their followers to do the same. However, it has the negatives that we commonly discuss, but it has helped some people.

          November 17, 2013 at 10:08 pm |
  2. Journey

    I think the fatal flaw of all Calvinist theology was that the Bible was supposed to be translated, observed, studied, and all the words considered literal fact and drawn to their logical conclusion (i.e. sola scriptura). Was probably the best way of thinking in 1517 and most of the Reformers themselves were also scholarly university types and dabbled in science. The only problem is science eventually caught up with them and presented it's own facts. Now you've got prominent Calvinist preachers saying things like "The Earth is only 6,000 years old even though God made it look 3.5 million years old."

    I will say this...logic really was the most truthful route. Too bad it left them behind. :/

    November 17, 2013 at 8:51 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

      It's a defense mechanism – having to evolve in the face of science in order to survive. But your example of them saying the earth is 6000 years old but looks 3.5 billion is different from the Catholics accepting evolution. Both are still defensive responses, but one is much closer to the truth than the other.

      November 17, 2013 at 9:04 pm |
  3. Lazerdawg

    I like this pope. I'm a lutheran so we generally don't get along well with popes. But From what I've read this man genuinely tries to live like Jesus. If his predecessors were all like him there would probably never been a protestant reformation. I might disagree with him on important issues of doctrine, but I wont deny that he is a great example for christians everywhere.

    November 17, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

      And I completely agree with you – he appears to be a good man who can do the Catholic Church much good, but I think the line of damage in the Church is so long that had it not been Martin Luther, it would have been someone else. My guess is that the shrinking number of parishoners, and therefor the coffers, has much to do with this.

      November 17, 2013 at 9:08 pm |
  4. Mojo Jo

    Does water exist? No argument there. Water does exist; we all know that.

    Does god exist? That is a matter for debate. Therefore, the existence of god is not proven.

    November 17, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • aaaa

      Is the earth flat. It was. Everybody believed that at some point in time. It turned out to be wrong. Truth is still truth if nobody believes. Error is still error if everybody believes.

      December 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
  5. tony

    Rainbows (as attributed to god) are proof that god didn't need to have the bible written in order to communicate to the whole world, almost insytantly, and almost daily if needed.

    November 17, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
    • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

      If there was an all-everything being, that being would be able to communicate with all of us, just as it did in the Old Testament, and it did so repeatedly. The fact that hasn't occurred says a great deal; it is a very simple thing for an all-powerful being. If such a being communicated the same message, to everyone, at the same time, we'd all believers, or at least I'll say I would.

      November 17, 2013 at 8:10 pm |
      • ?

        Maybe God doesn't like to talk to bigger audiences.

        November 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm |
        • ?

          Maybe He gets stage performance anxiety.

          November 17, 2013 at 8:36 pm |
    • Observer

      tony,

      TEN THOUSAND people dead. More proof that God exists?

      November 17, 2013 at 8:36 pm |
      • tony

        I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment.

        November 17, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
      • aaaa

        We ALL dies someday. 10000 is nothing to the creator who can give eternal life after death.

        December 24, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
  6. Mopery

    Dirty laundry duty, I assume?

    November 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm |
  7. bostontola

    The earth sure is a strange place if it was created for man. Most of the surface is salt water, can't live there or even drink it. Poisonous plants and animals. Frozen deserts at the poles, and hot deserts over much of the middle. Doesn't sound like very intelligent design. Man and animals must sleep, creating a huge vulnerability. There are straight forward natural explanations of those features, but not design.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @bostontola : The earth sure is a strange place if it was created for man. Most of the surface is salt water, can't live there or even drink it.

      1) Food comes from the ocean.
      2) How long has the ocean been salty?

      November 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
      • bostontola

        L4H,
        Neither point addresses my point on design. The food in the ocean is very inefficient way to feed man. I'll take it, but you wouldn't design it that way.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          bostonola,

          Which is the fool – the fool, the person willing to argue with the fool, or both?

          Think about it.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
        • bostontola

          YouTube,
          For sure the fool is a fool. I don't assume anyone is a fool though.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          I don't assume anyone is a fool either, that would be unfair, because there are people who genuinely don't know something, and they deserve our patience and understanding.

          And then there are the willfully ignorant, who, despite facts, refuse to consider otherwise.

          Which are you dealing with above? This is not the first time you've encountered this, right?

          November 17, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @bostontola : Neither point addresses my point on design.

          Only because you didn't follow my points. So, let me spell it out for you. Man is created in the Garden of Eden (i.e. not THIS world). This world is flooded (i.e. no salt water). After the flood, the rains gradually wash salt into the oceans. Eventually, you have salt water life and fresh water life.

          @bostontola : The food in the ocean is very inefficient way to feed man.

          You mean that huge nets scooping up free fish is NOT efficient? Why not? How would you design it?

          November 17, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
        • bostontola

          L4H,
          If you were making a point independent and not in response to my point, why did you make it in reply to mine? How I would design it is irrelevant, I am not a god. Given that the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the earth, and man has limited access, that is inefficient design.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
        • Doris

          It sure would have been nice if man had wound up with the immune system an alligator has.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
        • bostontola

          Doris,
          That's an interesting one. Why did god design us an immune system that adapts to the evolution of microbes, if there isn't evolution?

          November 17, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
        • Lionly Lamb

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RFOmlD_OX-s

          November 17, 2013 at 6:53 pm |
        • faith

          u watch. soon they will be farming boneless chickn of the sea

          November 17, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
        • ?

          Why does Liver insist on not only throwing a red herring, but doing it in the most condescending way possible?
          Reading her always reminds me of David Ogden Stier's character on M*A*S*H.

          November 17, 2013 at 7:55 pm |
        • Tweedlederp

          If you can't articulate an argument against ID any better than that, please find something else to do. You aren't helping.

          November 17, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
      • Janica

        The oceans were not salinated by rainwater passing over land into them. As a "scientist", you should know this.
        The oceans have had salt in them as long as the earth has been in existence. Here's a hint: underwater volcanoes.

        November 17, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
        • Janica

          Meant for Live.

          November 17, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
        • lol??

          Well, bust em for pollution. You could go after the nations that have em in their territorial waters.

          November 17, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          Janica,

          That's incorrect.

          Sea water has been defined as a weak solution of almost everything. Ocean water is indeed a complex solution of mineral salts and of decayed biologic matter that results from the teeming life in the seas. Most of the ocean's salts were derived from gradual processes such the breaking up of the cooled igneous rocks of the Earth's crust by weathering and erosion, the wearing down of mountains, and the dissolving action of rains and streams which transported their mineral washings to the sea. Some of the ocean's salts have been dissolved from rocks and sediments below its floor. Other sources of salts include the solid and gaseous materials that escaped from the Earth's crust through volcanic vents or that originated in the atmosphere.

          November 17, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
        • lol??

          Grassy, you tryin' to kill a cash cow??

          November 17, 2013 at 7:32 pm |
        • Mary

          All that in just 6000 years?

          November 17, 2013 at 7:51 pm |
      • How long has the oceans been salty?

        Longer than the 5,000 years you Christurds believe the Earth has been in existence.

        November 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
    • Inconvenient truth

      Earth is not good???.. Then take a shuttle to Mars an leave us alone, will you?!

      November 17, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
      • bostontola

        Please follow the point, I didn't say the earth isn't good, just that it wasn't designed intelligently, it formed through natural processes.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • Sheila

      A leader, Christian or not, led his students by example and continues to exemplify what he teaches. Why is that your impetus to preach against the existence of God? Just couldn't leave it alone?

      November 17, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
      • bostontola

        It looks like you just couldn't leave my comment alone. This is a belief blog, its open to all discussions. You may want to engage in the ones you like and ignore the others.

        November 17, 2013 at 6:11 pm |
      • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

        You'll find that many atheists, such as myself, like Francis, because he comes across as someone who cares and is trying to fix the Church.

        November 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
      • tony

        goo leadership, religious or not, meams religion is not necessary for good leadership, or any other human virtue or issue.

        November 17, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
      • Sheila - why are you such a harpy and denegrating your brothers and sisters?

        Your Lord Holy Jeebus COMMANDED you to not insult or judge others, and yet, here you are, in your PRIDEFUL way, belittling others.

        Jeebus is not happy with you, today. See? You made him cry. Just think of him, hanging on that cross, with nails pounded into his wrists and ankles (not hands and feet like you christurds think), and a lance wound in his side, and he's dying and suffering and since he's god – he can look down through time and then he sees YOU, Sheila, doing what he expressly told you NOT to do, and you made his suffering just THAT MUCH GREATER.

        Do you feel happy now, Sheila, since you didn't turn the other cheek as Jeebus told you to do? Are you happy know that you made your Jeebus cry and suffer? ARE YOU, SHEILA???

        Are you?

        November 17, 2013 at 8:17 pm |
        • Lazerdawg

          Jesus was humble, but he also said he was God., More than once. On that cross you accurately describe he knew he could with a though destroy this unworthy world, or call down an army of angels, just to give them something to do. You understand a being who exists outside of time and space. I not lying when I say I'm impressed. Most of my fellow christians can not. But just to humor me, for a moment just consider if such a being loved you more than any human ever loved thier own child. Someone who thinks relativity and string theory are childish compared to his knowledge of what he designed thinks that you are worth dying for, and that he is so powerful that even death cannot hold him, he can bring himself back to life, just to save you. Dont you think that he deserves a few minutes of your time to consider without prejudice? Einstein, Newton, Kierkegaard, Copernicus, Galileo, and even Hawking all thought so. They did not all reach the same conclusion, Some even disagree with me completely. but thought it worthy of their time to ponder it.

          November 17, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
      • Sheila - here's a thought... TURN THE OTHER CHEEK

        Like you were commanded to do.

        Tell me, Sheila, why you Christurds NEVER EVER EVER follow your Holy Jeebus' commandments?

        November 17, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
        • Lazerdawg

          That is a tired argument, and you are smarter than this. Iv read some of your other posts and you surely understand that a lieutenants its failure to follow a captains orders do not change the original intent of the capitan. Our failure to follow God says nothing about God himself. Only about us.

          November 17, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
    • Lazerdawg

      An interesting argument. Lets ignore for a moment how perfect an environment needs to be to support life. But life itself, is incredibly complex, even the simplest protists and eukaryotes are beyond our ability to make in a lab. Then in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics you believe they made themselves more complicated to meet a self serving end of reproduction without any interference? Everything that is alive contains a complex set of genetic information and instructions that no one wrote but propagates itself, and becomes increasingly complex? The idea that this is by random chance is baffling. If you see a car, you assume that its construction involved engineers, mechanics, and a factory. It would be ludicrous to assume that it was assembled by random chance, no matter how much time was involved. A single cell is more complex and far more fragile than a car. The only rational conclusion is that it was made on purpose. You do not exist by accident. if that does not comfort you than deal with it. Things do not become more complex without interference, matter goes from a state of order to disorder, ending in stellar collapse and a singularity. Science does not prove the existence of the Christian God, but it does indicate there is a God.

      November 17, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
  8. Live4Him

    @Tom, Tom, the Other One :

    You may want to read the first paragraph to the link that I've provided.

    http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20ignorantiam

    Introduction
    This is a guide to using logical fallacies in debate. And when I say "using," I don't mean just pointing them out when opposing debaters commit them - I mean deliberately committing them oneself, or finding ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones.

    By leaving off the obvious (i.e. Genesis 1 tells of creation), a lot of effort was put into refuting a solid premise – but to no avail.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
    • Terry

      L4H the coward is just top posting again. What a slippery little weasel.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
      • Doris

        Usually there is some twisting that goes on when SoftDinoScentedTissuePaper4Him posts at the top again. Twist to get out of the place it was stuck that is.

        November 17, 2013 at 6:19 pm |
      • Science Works

        Put L4H in a round room and L4H will say there are corners ..

        Live4Him

        Sorry, but I don't view any of the videos in the blog. If you can articulate it, I'll answer. Otherwise, I'll ignore it.
        November 16, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Report abuse | Reply

        November 17, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I did try to help you transform some of your statements into an argument. If you decide to put it all together, probably a few people will help you decide if it is effective. I did hint that even if formally correct it probably won't convince many people.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Tom, Tom, the Other One : I did hint that even if formally correct it probably won't convince many people.

        People's apriori beliefs hinder their objectivity.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          ... as does their willful ignorance.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
  9. Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

    Hmmm. Proving true prophecy.... That would be like 6 6 6 is the mark of the beast. Written before the time of Jesus. The only problem is that 6 6 6 is code for Nero's name. Nero, who persecuted Christians and who they were fearful of, was their "beast."

    Which means, the Bible has yet another error having been "assembled" shortly after Jesus' crucif ixion.

    Another unfortunate falsehood, in addition to the contradictions, in addition to the immoralities, in addition to what science has disproven about the Bible already.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Youtube – Neil DeGrasse : That would be like 6 6 6 is the mark of the beast. Written before the time of Jesus.

      Another very good example of a fulfilled prophecy.

      @Youtube – Neil DeGrasse : The only problem is that 6 6 6 is code for Nero's name.

      Not according to what Scripture states.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
      • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

        Dude, I'm laughing at you and your willful ignorance.

        Willful ignorance should be ridiculed loudly, longly, and strongly.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
        • Live4Him

          Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person).

          November 17, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          Yeah, it sure is. Loudly, longly, and strongly at the willfully ignorant.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
        • ridicule them - long, loud and OFTEN

          Sorry, Neil, but I disagree. You're smart, Mr. DeGrasse Tyson, but Einstein was smarter, and he said that doing something over and over and over again and expecting different results is called INSANITY.

          We've tried being polite with Christians. We've tried persuasion. We've tried to educate them. We've done these things over and over and over and over and over again, and it's fruitless. It's insanity to think that Christurds can be educated. THEY SHOULD BE SHAMED, and IGNORED. If they later educate themselves out of their insane delusions, then fine, but WE – the SANE ones, shouldn't rationalize WHY they're stupid – we should just acknowledge they are stupid and move on.

          November 17, 2013 at 8:28 pm |
        • Youtube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebukes Richard Dawkins

          No, I disagree. I can agree with someone simply not believing, but when they throw out junk science, which confuses someone else who does not know better, that's a real problem.

          November 17, 2013 at 8:59 pm |
      • ?

        You also think that UPC codes are the Mark Of The Beast, L4H, so I think your credibility is a little shaky.

        November 17, 2013 at 8:45 pm |
        • Tweedlederp

          UPC stands for Universal Pixie Control – Our pixie masters control us from the shadows, the bar codes are signals that show which items are poisoned or not. Put out a dish of milk and maybe they will have mercy upon thee.

          November 17, 2013 at 9:37 pm |
  10. Cal

    Riddle me this, how would both freshwater and salt water fish survive in the same worldwide ocean?

    November 17, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Cal : Riddle me this, how would both freshwater and salt water fish survive in the same worldwide ocean?

      Don't you realize that all life adapts to changes in its environment?

      November 17, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        An experiment is called for, but I have nothing but sympathy for fish.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:45 pm |
      • Dean

        Would you expect such adaptations in one fish inside one lifetime, after birth?

        November 17, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Dean : Would you expect such adaptations in one fish inside one lifetime, after birth?

          Of course not! It took thousands of years.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
      • Cal

        So like one species fish becoming another?

        November 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          sshhh!

          November 17, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Cal : So like one species fish becoming another?

          Or like fruit flies becoming another after forced mutations. However, after experimentations (equating to millions of evolutionary years) in the 1950's they were still fruit flies – albeit at a disadvantage to the original 'specie'.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
        • Cal

          I must be missing something. So worldwide flood happens, all the water is mixed. Based on volume it would most likely be a salt water. So all the fish in freshwater lakes die. This is a sudden shock, no time for adaptation. Are you implying that since the flood salinity levels in lakes and rivers gradually decreased allowing adequate time for adaptation?

          November 17, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
      • tony

        Over about 4000 generations I read somewhere.

        November 17, 2013 at 7:48 pm |
        • ?

          Evolution?

          November 17, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
  11. HeavensWarrior

    I'm suppose to believe that we exist by natural selection(in other words, random chance) by some random explosion that put random things in their place insulting in a random chance that us humans would exist? Something seems wrong with believing this. Oh wait! Its just another atheist fairy-tale they try and pass off as a "fact". Seems like a religion to me that deserves ridicule.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • Lawrence of Arabia

      Austin, is that me?

      November 17, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • Bernhard

      Uh, warrior, why does god need you to be a warrior for it?

      And that "random chance" thing again is an old, failed argument. Go here and learn, you pathetic ignoramus:
      http://www.nas.edu/evolution/index.html

      November 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
      • HeavensWarrior

        We humans exist by random chance according to many atheists since you don't believe a creator created us. Life isn't random. Things happen for a reason. That's something the atheistic belief doesn't want to believe.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          It is well-understood that life changes under non-random processes. Sometimes we refer to "constrained randomness", but what you probably mean by random usually isn't what's going on in evolutionary dynamics.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm |
        • HeavensWarrior

          To an atheist, we only exist to live and die. That's a belief not a fact. It's a belief without proof.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:10 pm |
        • tony

          You got that backwards. Life only has a hidden purpose if you are a believer. And for some reason, you don't get told what it is up front, which is staggeringly stupid if you actually want the purpose to be fulfilled. Otherwise the rest of us realise that, like small furry animals at night, becoming roadkill is a matter of chance.

          So instead most of us try to find an enjoyable and satisfying existence based on balancing what we know we already have and might also come across in time.

          November 17, 2013 at 7:55 pm |
        • Tweedlederp

          People who don't understand or who refuse to acknowledge reality are crazy. Nothing they say is worth listening to unless you enjoy make-believe and pretend games that go overboard.

          November 17, 2013 at 9:44 pm |
    • sam stone

      still on your knees, begging for salvation?

      jeebus is waiting. do you have tall buildings where you live?

      November 17, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
      • HeavensWarrior

        Are asking me to commit suicide? If you are, I'm calling the police.

        November 17, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
        • Tweedlederp

          You think someone telling you to kill yourself is illegal? Bwahahahahahahaha!

          Go ahead and kill yourself if you want. You enjoy threatening others with torture, so I guess we don't need you to be alive.
          Anyone who is so filled with hate that they enjoy the idea of eternal torture for people they don't like is clearly insane.

          November 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
      • robert brown

        Dear god, I am on my knees begging you to spare this deviant pervert from eternity in hell fire. Amen!

        November 17, 2013 at 7:41 pm |
  12. Inconvenient truth

    Lately the cnn belif blogs are full of catholic story's.... Is the Vatican investing in CNN belif blogs??

    November 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
  13. Live4Him

    This is to make 'Tom, Tom' happy. Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.

    Natural Origins or Supernatural Origins?
    __ a) Matter, energy and time exist. Where did they come from? There is currently no naturalistic explanation that only has supporting evidence for this issue. There is a supernatural explanation (Genesis 1) for their origins.
    __ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has supporting evidence for this issue.
    Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary.

    Which supernatural being or event answers the above issue?
    __ a) Multiple religions address the creation of life, but only three begin with the creation of matter, energy and time.
    __ b) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
    __ c) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
    Therefore, only the Abrahamic religions answer both of the basic issues.

    Did the Judaism God Do It?
    __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
    __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
    Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender.

    Did the Islamic God Do It?
    __ a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
    __ b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
    __ c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
    Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.

    Did the Christian God Do It?
    __ a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
    __ b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
    Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the better answer.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Sorry Tom, I forgot to add the statement to the origins of life issue, so here it is:

      __ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has supporting evidence for this issue. There is a supernatural explanation (Genesis 1) for its origins.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        You need to add that (you think people should believe that) an explanation is necessary.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Tom, Tom, the Other One : You need to add that (you think people should believe that) an explanation is necessary.

          This is obvious, given that millions of dollars are invested into scientific research into this issue.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • Terry

      Coward L4H is top-posting again. What a loser.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Also, there are things that people might expect from an explanation (supernatural or natural). Think of an explanation as a method, M, that convinces people that something, G, is true.
      – Is M such that if G is true, then people are convinced that G is true?
      – Is M such that if G were not true, the explanation would convince people that G is not true?

      November 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Also, there are things that people might expect from an explanation

        Of course. If you stop at the first premise, then you never get convinced. However, follow the rest of the premises to the logical conclusion.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
        • Dean

          The logical conclusion is that bible god does not exist. Christianity is a massive fairy tale.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Dean : The logical conclusion is that bible god does not exist.

          You'd better hope your right.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
  14. Live4Him

    @Live4Him : Ezekiel 37 (written before Christ with extant manuscripts dating prior to 70 AD) prophesied the nation of Israel being dead so long that "her bones were dried up" and then returning to life. Furthermore, when she was reborn, she would inhabit the Promised Land. This was fulfilled in May 1948.
    @Sue : Your prophecies DO NOT CONTAIN OR OTHERWISE PREDICT THE EVENT DATES.

    Well, you're welcome to YOUR subjective standards. But, when you arbitrarily add requirements just to exclude things you don't like, it shows your subjectivity (i.e. a priori beliefs influencing your views). So, lets take an OBJECTIVE standard.

    1) The prophecy must be clear, and it must contain sufficient detail to make its fulfillment by a wide variety of possible events unlikely.
    2) The event that can fulfill the prophecy must be unusual or unique.
    3) The prophecy must be known to have been made before the event that is supposed to be its fulfillment.
    4) The event foretold must not be of the sort that could be the result of an educated guess.
    5) The event that fulfills the prophecy cannot be staged, or the relevant circumstances manipulated, by those aware of the prophecy in such a way as to intentionally cause the prophecy to be fulfilled.

    Krueger, Douglas E., “WHAT IS ATHEISM – A Short Introduction”, Pg 96-98

    So, using this objective standard, I've provided a true prophecy.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Dates aren't subjective standards.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Dates aren't subjective standards.

        Krueger seems to think so. Can you imagine the following scnenario?

        Prediction: On August 1, 2014, Obama will be killed in the White House by an explosion.

        With this many details, Obama simply chooses to be elsewhere on that date – preventing the fulfillment of said prophecy. Thus, dates prevent the fulfillment of prophecies – and are thus included due to a priori beliefs that don't want prophecies to be possible.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Sorry, I meant to put a question mark on that: Dates aren't subjective standards? It seems you agree that they are now.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          So you want to add that prophecies are delicate things, the fulfilment of which can be prevented? Is this true of everything God knows?

          November 17, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Dates aren't subjective standards? It seems you agree that they are now.

          My position is that requiring dates in prophecies is a subjective standard meant to prevent the fulfillment of said prophecy. Sue appears to be arguing that they are an objective standard.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Tom, Tom, the Other One : So you want to add that prophecies are delicate things, the fulfilment of which can be prevented? Is this true of everything God knows?

          Krueger seems to think so – given that his objective criteria prevents the staging of said prophecy. See, prophecies can be manipulated: staged (i.e. forced) or prevented, and for them to be true prophecy, manipulations must not be allowed.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
        • sam stone

          live4him...jeebus is waiting for you

          go meet him

          November 17, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
        • Mary

          Isn't using argument from authority a fallacy or something? "Krueger thinks so..."

          November 17, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Mary : Isn't using argument from authority a fallacy or something? "Krueger thinks so..."

          Yes, it is the appeal to authority. First, my point was an objective standard, rather than subjective. Second, I was using an atheist as the standard, rather than appealing to an authority from my own viewpoint. By appealing to an authority figure from the opposing side, this fallacy becomes negated.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:31 pm |
        • Mary

          But I've seen you do the same thing. Why is it not valid for others but it is for you?
          Do you believe everything that another Christian write to be true and correct? If you don't, isn't it wrong to assume everything that one atheist writes is what every atheist must believe?
          And isn't that a fallacy as well?

          November 17, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
    • Sue

      Even your first criterion rules out your claimed "prophecy" as being such. I am asking for such detail regarding a date, and you fail to be able to provide that.

      Again, show us a prophecy with a specific predicted date within it, or we can continue to discard your claim as the obvious bullshit that it is.

      And learn to use the reply button. You won't escape scrutiny of your claims by top-posting.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
      • Terry

        L4H has already revealed himself as being spineless, so the top posting wimp out he just did is hardly surprising.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Sue : I am asking for such detail regarding a date, and you fail to be able to provide that.

        That's right. You're asking for that which would prevent fulfillment of said prophecy. Krueger doesn't think that dates are important, but you DO!

        November 17, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
        • Sue

          No, not at all. Date is a great detail to ask for, and you are unable to provide it. Your Obama analogy fails because Obama is not being claimed to be a god. Is your "god" fully in control of events, or do you have one of those less than omnipotent gods...

          You are welcome to try with some other prophecy, but so far, you've been caught out in your bullshit. Plain and simple.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Sue : No, not at all. Date is a great detail to ask for

          See my post to Tom (November 17, 2013 at 5:20 pm), concerning why they are subjective.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
        • Sue

          So you admit that you cannot present a prophecy that meets my criterion? Yes or no answer, please.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Sue : So you admit that you cannot present a prophecy that meets my criterion?

          See my post to Tom (November 17, 2013 at 5:20 pm).

          November 17, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
        • Sue

          So you admit that you cannot present a prophecy that meets my criterion? Yes or no answer, please. One word suffices.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Live4Him is in the awkward position of accepting that God is unable to prevent someone from preventing a prophecy from coming true. A date might inform someone who is intent on preventing fulfilment of the prophecy.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:57 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Live4Him is in the awkward position of accepting that God is unable to prevent someone from preventing a prophecy from coming true.

          Why do you propose that God would give someone free will and then deny him/her the exercise of such?

          God: Here's a prophecy. Now I'm going to make you do the actions to make it come true!

          Somehow, I just cannot picture this. Wouldn't atheists object (rightfully) that they were forced into actions against their will?

          November 17, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
        • Sue

          So you admit that you cannot present a prophecy that meets my criterion? Yes or no answer, please. One word will suffice, but you'll need to summon more courage to do that than you have shown so far.

          November 17, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
      • Cal

        If your God is truely omnipotent, nothing could prevent his prophecy from being fulfilled.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
        • Sue

          Exactly, Cal.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
        • Live4Him

          See my post to Tom (November 17, 2013 at 5:20 pm).

          November 17, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
        • Sue

          Your referenced post does not rebut Cal's statement. And again, you cannot present a prophecy with a specific date in it. I'd say you've been caught, and since then, you've backpedaled furiously. We know where that leaves you.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
        • Cal

          Would that be on this same article?

          November 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Cal : Would that be on this same article?

          Of course. Its this same thread, but higher up. Tom posted and then Sue posted. Thus, I responded to Tom first. However, here's the info:

          Prediction: On August 1, 2014, Obama will be killed in the White House by an explosion.

          With this many details, Obama simply chooses to be elsewhere on that date – preventing the fulfillment of said prophecy. Thus, dates prevent the fulfillment of prophecies – and are thus included due to a priori beliefs that don't want prophecies to be possible.

          BTW – this is why I often start a new thread – too many posts to follow.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
        • Cal

          Of course your example gives a time AND place. If only the time was given one would not be able to run and hide. But as to myoriginal assertion, an omnipotent being could simply teleport that person back to that location. But know that would just beplain silly.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:17 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Cal : Of course your example gives a time AND place. If only the time was given one would not be able to run and hide.

          Ezekiel 37 already gave a place (i.e. the Promised Land). If you want to add the date, then you're in the position you're now protesting.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:24 pm |
        • Cal

          Touche. Got myself into that one. But I suppose I just don't see why a prophecy can't just be enforced by an omnipotent being.If God wants it to happen humans can't stop it. Now to be clear, I'm actually partly with you on this one. Whether or not I believe the prophecy to be divine, one can only go by what info was originally given in the Bible. Asking for more info I don't believe to be true just seems silly.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Cal : But I suppose I just don't see why a prophecy can't just be enforced by an omnipotent being.

          Its called the law of non-contradiction (or the law of excluded middle).

          November 18, 2013 at 9:38 am |
    • Cal

      So relative to point 5, are you saying that those responsible for the formation of the Isreali state were unaware of the existance this prophecy?

      November 17, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Cal : So relative to point 5, are you saying that those responsible for the formation of the Isreali state were unaware of the existance this prophecy?

        Awareness is not the standard given by Kruegar. The standard is staging its fulfillment.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Statements by Harry Truman show that he was well aware that he was helping, staging if you will, something that had been prophesied.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Statements by Harry Truman show that he was well aware that he was helping, staging if you will, something that had been prophesied.

          Did it only take ONE man to make this happen? What about the other nations feeling guilty over the Holocaust?

          November 17, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
      • Cal

        Staging or not, the primary players in the support of the Isreali state, U.S. and Britian, were nations that were primarily Christian and would have incentive to make sure a prophecy was fulfilled.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Cal : Staging or not, the primary players in the support of the Isreali state, U.S. and Britian, were nations that were primarily Christian and would have incentive to make sure a prophecy was fulfilled.

          But, this was never their intention. Their stated intention was to give the Israeli's a land of their own so that they could not be persecuted like Hitler did (at least short of a war).

          November 17, 2013 at 5:58 pm |
        • Cal

          I suppose that would be quite the conspiracy theory.

          November 17, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
        • lol??

          "...............................The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region.............'

          http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

          November 17, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • lol??

      Beasts are gubmints. The not -a-jew jews in the Nation of Israel are not saved in a majority way; undoubtedly a few are.

      Rev 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

      Beasts and false prophets (religion) vie for authority and are not exactly friends. Plenty are wondering, alright.

      November 17, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • TG

      Ezekiel 37 is not applying to the nation of fleshly Israel returning to their homeland in 1948. Why ? Simply put, Jesus told the nation of fleshly Israel just three days before his death: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her – how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings ! But you did not want it. Look ! Your house (the temple) is abandoned to you. For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ' Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah's name.' "(Matt 23:37-39) The nation of fleshly Israel were murderers, as corrupt as any other nation on earth.

      Just prior to his saying that the temple was abandoned to themselves because they rejected Jehovah's son, the Messiah, he said to the Jewish religious leaders: "Did you never read in the Scriptures (at Isa 28:16), ' The stone (Jesus Christ) that the builders (the Jewish religious leaders) rejected, this has become the chief cornerstone. This has come from Jehovah, and it is marvelous in our eyes ' ? This is why I say to you (as representing the nation of fleshly Israel), the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits."(Matt 21:42, 43)

      The apostle Paul showed that the Jews were the ones who murdered God's Son, Jesus Christ and persecuted many of God's loyal servants at 1 Thess 2:14, 15. Thus, the nation of Israel has been rejected by Jehovah God and replaced with another "nation", spiritual Israel.(Gal 6:16) These ones are producing the "fruits" that is pleasing to God.(Gal 5:22, 23)

      November 17, 2013 at 10:36 pm |
  15. Robert Brown

    The pope has a perfect example for a servant, Jesus.

    4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

    5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

    6 Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?

    7 Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.

    8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.

    9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.

    10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

    11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.

    12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?

    13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

    14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

    15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

    16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

    17 If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The idea that we should defer to one another, even at times be servants of one another, is one of Jesus' best ones – challenging people to put aside self for individuals and the community.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
  16. Lionly Lamb

    Living one's Life here with resounding regularity of moral equality and apart from Godliness ideals is of little difference regarding one living a holistic Life... Having faith in there being an Afterlife is but a difference of one's ideological perspectives... Theist or not, Life is…

    Within any Natural Realm there are mechanical variants of atomized diversities… The Biologic Diversities around the multitudes of atomized symmetries in machined likenesses are deceptively Fractal or look similar in their appearances whenever telescopically or microscopically viewed…

    Do I have belief in a God of long ago being the Originator of Creationism..? Yes I do... Do I believe that the absolute ‘Allness of Nothingness’ is God's Spirit wherein anyone's body the nothingness that is a part of our body’s being is apportioned of God’s Spirit..? Yes I do… Therefore nothing material can ever escape God’s Nothingness Spirit. From the outer reaches of Spatial Nothingness and even far into the innermost depths of all Atomized Nothingness Realms, God’s Holiness Spirit will forever dwell apart from and forever within us all…

    God so commands all orbital velocities be it inwardly from the lowly atoms and even outwardly toward issues of all that is made celestially orbital... Our humanoid embodiments of orbital atoms are merely adorning buildings being structured just so to be inhabited by godly generations on a scalar dimension unequaled within the outward depths and breadths of spatially celestial reciprocity...

    Is it not written, "Seek First/b> the kingdom of God…"? Why do most theists and their non-counterparts say here this thing or there that thing when the point is made to firstly be seeking the whereabouts of God's kingdom domains..? Join any microbiology club lately..? How about an astronomy club..? Maybe do some research about Fractal Cosmology..? Me..? I want a microscope for Christmas…

    November 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • Gary

      html fail.

      November 17, 2013 at 8:27 pm |
  17. Live4Him

    @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Live4Him 's attempt at logic:

    http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20ignorantiam
    Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

    November 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Whoops! posted to the wrong spot

      November 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
  18. Live4Him

    @Sue : you really need to look up argument from ignorance. Just google it or something. You clearly don't understand the term.

    http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20ignorantiam
    Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

    Now, which part of my first premise did I assume to be true: a) there is no definitive naturalist explanation, or b) there is a supernaturalist explanation?

    November 17, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
    • Terry

      Stop top posting, COWARD.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
  19. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Live4Him 's attempt at logic:

    There are currently no naturalistic explanations for A or for B. A and B must be supernatural.

    su·per·nat·u·ral
    ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
    adjective
    adjective: supernatural

    1.
    (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
    "a supernatural being"
    synonyms: paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal;

    November 17, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Live4Him 's attempt at logic:

      http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20ignorantiam
      Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Perhaps I did exaggerate. You used lowercase "a" and "b". Here is what you said:

        Live4Him

        Here are the premises that I base my conclusion upon for the Biblical God / Jesus.

        Natural Origins or Supernatural Origins?
        __ a) Matter, energy and time exist. Where did they come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation
        that only has supporting evidence for this issue.
        __ b) Life exist. Where did it come from? There are currently not naturalistic explanation that only has
        supporting evidence for this issue.
        Therefore, this implies some supernatural being or event is necessary.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Tom, Tom, the Other One : Perhaps I did exaggerate. You used lowercase "a" and "b". Here is what you said:

          My point, which is valid, is that 1) There is no definitive natural explanation, and 2) There is a definitive supernatural explanation. This follows standard logic, so what is your point here?

          November 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          That it doesn't follow standard logic as written. If you want to add the existence of a supernatural explanation as a premise or fact you need to do that. You also need to add that an explanation is necessary.

          No one need accept your premise on the supernatural, so the argument is pointless.

          November 17, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Tom, Tom, the Other One : If you want to add the existence of a supernatural explanation as a premise or fact you need to do that.

          Fine, I'll add it from now on! Happy now?

          November 17, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
      • Cal

        Atleast L4H did use the word "currently". Same story different day. Science has yet, keyword "yet", discovered the answer, tjerefore Goddidit. Religion has always used God to fill knowledge gaps that are later filled by science.

        November 17, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Mary

      Sorry, Luve4Him. Tom is correct.

      November 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
  20. George

    Gotta love this guy !!!

    November 17, 2013 at 4:28 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.