home
RSS
Supreme Court delays contraception mandate for two Catholic nonprofits
December 31st, 2013
06:33 PM ET

Supreme Court delays contraception mandate for two Catholic nonprofits

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

Washington (CNN)–
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily exempted two Catholic Church-affiliated nonprofits from requirements to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a brief order late Tuesday, hours before the controversial Obama administration mandates were set to go into effect.

The Little Sisters of the Poor – a charity congregation of Roman Catholic women in Denver – and the Illinois-based Christian Brothers Services had filed a lawsuit objecting to the contraception mandate, saying it violated their religious and moral beliefs. Some religious-affiliated groups were required to comply with contraception coverage or face hefty fines.

Sotomayor said the two groups were exempted from the mandates until at least Friday, when the federal government faces a deadline to file a legal response in the case.

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bishops • Catholic Church • Christianity • Courts • Pope Francis

soundoff (1,682 Responses)
  1. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    I'm encouraged that the contraception issue is over whether Catholic affiliated groups can be (in some sense) compelled to offer contraception. They actually want to be able to deny and forbid contraception.

    January 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
  2. Honey Badger Don't Care

    Lie4him,

    I dont know why you keep focusing on Job. Isaiah 40:22 clearly states that the Earth is flat. You should read your bible more. You dont know it very well.

    Isaiah 40:22
    New International Version (NIV)

    22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

    (BTW, Job only serves to prove how much of an azz that your god is.)

    January 2, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Honey Badger Don't Care : Lie4him

      Since you were not polite, I'll ignore this thread.

      <><

      January 2, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        dodge.

        January 2, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • Hey Yabbott!

          I personally think the Biblical issues of the shape of the Earth are not Christianity's biggest credibility problem. Heck, the fact that unchanging God radically changes character from a vengeful angry slaughterer to a God of love is a much bigger problem. Or the fact that his Old Testament rules are mostly immoral, many downright evil.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • Joey

          True, but it is amusing to watch Live4Him realize that there is no way the story as described in the bible could have actually happened, and instead of admitting it he tries to claim that Jesus and Satan were on the moon.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • Matt

          Without a God, what is described in the Bible couldn't happen. If there is a God, it could happen as described.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
        • Joey

          True Matt, which is why someone needs to prove that god exists before the discussion of what god can and can't do occurs.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
      • Charm Quark

        L4H, LofA, Topher, et al
        You are all so sensitive to criticism and rush to the ad hominem when other posters get tired of your dodges and lies. Cowards all.

        January 2, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
      • Honey Badger Don't Care

        Truth hurts doesn't it?

        January 2, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
  3. Portland tony

    We need more woman......to be.....barefoot and pregnant....That's the churches way? And this isn't even abortion which I personally oppose!

    January 2, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
    • Doris

      lol – oh and also ready for harvesting at 15/16 according to the duck man.

      January 2, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
      • Jethro Klanphilia

        Phil is my roll modle. Anyone who advocates underage womin and guns and whoopin on gayes in the name ov God is my kind ov guy.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The Church needs breeders. These days I don't think the odds on a birth giving rise to someone Catholic by choice are all that high.

      January 2, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
    • Dippy

      It's "church's" not "churches."

      January 2, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
      • Kenny

        You are wrong! Wrong! It's "churros"!

        "For verily and thusly, thou shalt get exactly the same result from prayer as you would if you just eat a churro. Yea though the churro is indeed yummier, verily." Kenny 2:54-17

        January 2, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • Bagel Mode

          Churros sounds fine to me. Way way more nutritious than churches even deep fried. And would be a break from my usual toasted fare. Hold the cream cheese on that order.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Kenny

          Cream cheese on a churro?!?! Jesus Chavez, the most beloved God Of Churros (and patron saint of lawnmowing) will certainly strike you down, uh, okay, he'll leave lawn mohawks from bad mowing for such blasphemous heretical apostacy, and a whole lot of other obscure terminology too!

          January 2, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
  4. bostontola

    Why would God be willing to help Israelites win in a battle, but not be willing to give them knowledge that would make them technologically superior to their enemies. If God gave them basic mathematical principles, basic physics, etc, they would have kicked butt, and God's people would have dominated the heathens. It would have provided timeless proof of God's existence.

    Instead there is only stories of a highly tactical God, throwing hail, creating plagues, etc. None of this is verifiable. Much of the creation story is shown to be false. We humans have an uncanny ability to place spells on our children that are amazingly strong.

    January 2, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
    • Madtown

      And along those lines, didn't God also create the human beings that were the enemies of Israel? Why would God command 1 subset of his equal creations, to go off and kill and take the lands of another subset of his equal creations? Does God play favorites?

      January 2, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • igaftr

        According to EVERY religion...yes. All religions teach that you have to believe in their god, and worship their way and god will treat you with priority.

        The jews refer to everyone else as mud people. The christians claim you have to believe in their god, and you get into heaven.
        the muslims claim you have to follow their rules and god must be worshipped their way, everyone else is infidels.

        Ridiculous claims for ridiculous beliefs.

        January 2, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • John D

          "Christian exclusiveness, for that is what the lack of charity suggests, cannot face the requirements of modesty, the notion that all is not known and that we do not know all. When devout Christians believe that only Christians of a particular doctrinal stripe have access to God, that, for example, God hears their prayers only, they stand in cosmic immodesty. The Christian Bible more than once makes the point that God’s ways are not our ways, and that the mind of God is vastly different from our own minds. Thus, when Christians state categorically that Jews, or Muslims, or believers in other faith systems are outside the provisions of God, they utter arrogant nonsense. A respectful agnosticism is called for when often there is offered in its place a self-interested certainty. If God is the God of all, and not just a tribal deity, then God has made provision, not necessarily known to us, for the healing and care of all his creation, and not simply our little part of it.

          J. B. Phillips observed many years ago that one’s God is too small if within God’s providence there is no care and awareness of the other. This is what the hymn writer F. W. Faber meant in “There’s a Wideness in God’s Mercy,” when he said:

          For the love of God is broader

          Than the measure of our mind:;

          And the heart of the Eternal

          Is most wonderfully kind.

          If there is any good news that is truly good news for everybody, and not just for a few somebodies, it is this: God is greater and more generous than the best of those who profess to know and serve him. This is the radical nonconformity with the conventional wisdom that Jesus both proclaimed and exemplified, and, alas, it cost him his life. Will we hope to fare any better, as disciples of his nonconformity?"

          – Peter Gomes (A Christian demonstrating the opposite of what you imagine.)

          January 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • Madtown

          A respectful agnosticism is called for when often there is offered in its place a self-interested certainty.
          ---–
          I agree with this completely.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • John D

          That is just good advice for anyone, I believe. Gomes was the man I learned from that it is ok to be agnostic about things. And it is ok to admit it.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • Madtown

          I believe we're all truly agnostic, whether we admit it or not. I don't think anyone has the correct answers to any of these types of questions. I really don't think the answers are found in religion.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • John D

          That is basically what a pastor once told me.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
  5. Doris

    For readers who may be confused by the game of tiddlywinks below.

    When all is said and done, as noted by Doc Vestibule:

    "Job 26:10 in Hebrew:
    חק־חג על־פני־מים
    עד־תכלית אור
    עם־חשך׃

    The term used is ChG, which means a flat circle, like a coin.
    The specific term for a sphere is גלגל העין or "dur" when anglicized."

    It is unlikely from the passage in Job, that people believed then that the earth was a sphere.

    January 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Doris : It is unlikely from the passage in Job, that people believed then that the earth was a sphere

      Since few people on this forum understand Hebrew, lets use English and reference Hebrew as needed.

      A boundary encircles the earth between the light and the darkness.

      Since the passage was referencing the boundary (rather than the earth itself), then 'dur' could not be used. Instead, the term 'boundary encirclement' (חק־חג) was used. Notice that the words are in a conjunction (broken apart: חק־ חג) and so they cannot be separated. Note: for those without Hebrew understanding, Hebrew is read from right to left (the reverse of English)

      <><

      January 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
      • Darwin

        Darwin
        _| _|

        January 2, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        "A boundary encircles the earth between the light and the darkness" makes no sense regardless of whether you live in Flatland or not, Live4Him. What boundary?

        January 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • BRC

        Live4Him,
        Several issues. One, you don't "encircle" a sphere. You "encircle" 2 dimensions, x adn y. You "encompass" a sphere, that would describe properly surrounding and containing a spherical object.

        Another, where on earth are you getting your translation of the passage. I ran and grabbed 3 different translations-
        KJV-
        He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
        At the boundary of light and darkness.

        NRSV-Catholic
        He has described a circle on the face of the waters,
        at the boundary between light and darkness.
        =>>>New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
        New Revised Standard Version Bible: Catholic Edition, copyright © 1989, 1993 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Job 26:10 in all English translations

        Orthodox Jewish Bible-
        He hath circled the horizon on the face of the mayim for a boundary between ohr and choshech.

        NONE of them match yours, so where are you pulling the word "encircle" (which again, doesn't make your case any better) from?

        January 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • Doris

        So. If you resided on the surface of a very large contact lens-shaped object with the same curvature as the earth, and noticed that it would continuously grow dark or light from one side, how would that differ in regards to this argument from being on the surface of a sphere? Do you have any evidence of people from that region knowing what was on the other side of the earth from them?

        January 2, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Doris : Do you have any evidence of people from that region knowing what was on the other side of the earth from them?

          There is a plethora of evidence in the Bible that the sun was not a stationary object relative to the earth. Given that it is the primary light source and that it moves relative to the earth, then the only way the boundary could form a circle at all times would be if the object the boundary encircled was a sphere. Otherwise, it could only be a circle when the sun was perpendicular to the flat object and that object was circular in shape.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • Doris

          How does the passage state that the light from the sun formed a circle at all times, L4H? And for whom, other than the known people at the time in that area?

          January 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Doris : How does the passage state that the light from the sun formed a circle at all times, L4H?

          Verb tense – she was running vs. she had ran. The verb implies a continuing action.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • BRC

          Live4Him,
          Again, number of issues. 1) The Sun IS stationary relative to Earth... we know this for a fact. What the sun is not is stationary APPARENT from Earth. Relative motion and apparent motion being 2 very different things. And as far as apparent motion goes, the fact that the Sun moves through the sky tells you very little about the overall the shape of the Earth. Because we are so short as to be mathematically insignificant when compared to the curvature of the earth, for a human standing the earth may as well be flat (or if the human is standing high up or has an unrestricted view of the horizon you can percieve that a curve exists). Without measuring angular motion and doing the calculations, you only know that there is an apparent orbital motion. The world could be any number of shapes from sphere to disc. The rest of the knowdledge that the Earth HAS to be round (it's not a perfect sphere afterall) comes from the other knowledge that human's gathered (circmnavigation, effects of gravity, observation of heavenly bodies, etc.) IF you left it up to the will of a divine being, "God" could have absolutely made the world a disc, and made the sun to orbit around it, and the apparent effect would be the same. The Bible really was not that useful in learning how our Earth looks, moves, or works.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • Doris

          There seems to quite a bit of difference in translation reported there by BRC and the translation you used. How do you account for such difference between yours and what BRC posted there for the Orthodox Jewish?

          January 2, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Doris : There seems to quite a bit of difference in translation reported there by BRC and the translation you used.

          I didn't use a specific translation, but translated the original Hebrew. However, much of what I've presented is supported in other translations. For example, the NKJV and the KJV agree with with the verb 'drew a circular or compassed'. This could likewise be translated into the single word encircle. Likewise, the 'until the day and the night come to an end' supports the verb tense issue that I previously mentioned.

          NKJV : He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.

          KJV : He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

          Also, note that BRC agreed that You "encompass" a sphere – and yet that is the words that the KJV uses – and he STILL isn't satisfied!

          Last, as I mentioned previously, the contraction (חק־חג) or 'boundary encirclement' was used. This directly links the boundary and the circle into a single word. The bolded section is the term that is translated as 'circle' in the various translations. ( : חגחק־)

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • Live4Him

          The bolded section contraction didn't come out right – however, the left two characters of the original word are the contraction indicating an encirclement.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • BRC

          Live4Him,
          "Also, note that BRC agreed that You "encompass" a sphere – and yet that is the words that the KJV uses – and he STILL isn't satisfied!"

          Probably because that is NOT the word that the KJV uses. "compass" and "encompass" are two different words with two different meanings. Now, compass and encircle are pretty close, but they don't have the same meaning as encompass, to completely envelop and contain. So you're right, as long as the words your using don't mean what you say they mean, I am not satisfied.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
      • G to the T

        Where the heck are you getting that translation? I've got 5 bibles and it doesn't match anything I've got...

        January 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
      • Doris

        I still don't see from this translation:

        "He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
        At the boundary of light and darkness."

        where the boundary itself is said to move or to be always something. It makes more sense for it to just be an expression noting that at the east/west horizon is most easily identifiable when the sun starts to set/rise and then finish.

        January 2, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • Doris

          sorry – this is a reply that should have been indented more – I was replying to L4H's reply at 4:48

          January 2, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
  6. Live4Him

    @In Santa we trust : You do know that there is a "reply' link?

    Sure do!

    January 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • Johnny

      Still waiting on any evidence you have that Jesus and Satan went to the moon.

      January 2, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
    • Science Works

      For the New thread of L4H

      Bill Nye Wants To Wage War on Anti-Science Politics, Make a Movie—And Save the Planet From Asteroids

      http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/01/bill-nye-interview-asteroids-climate-science-politics

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Agdvt9M3NJA#t=106

      January 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
  7. Live4Him

    @Saraswati : L4H has used this "we've already agreed" tactic before.

    The segments of the debate were captured below. I specifically stated a conditional start to a new thread, given that he agreed that we concluded Job 26:10 referenced a spherical earth.

    @Alias : If you think that says the world is round, I'll go with it. (1:08 pm)
    @Live4Him : Since you agree that this verse indicates a spherical earth, why don't you start a new thread and present a verse that you want to discuss. (1:11 pm)
    @Alias : job 26:10 says the world is round. (1:17 pm)
    @Live4Him : We've already agreed that this passage states that the earth is a sphere. (1:41 pm)

    <><

    January 2, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      You do know that there is a "reply' link?

      January 2, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • Johnny

      So where is your evidence that Jesus and Satan spent some time on the moon?

      January 2, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        I don't know about Space Jesus, but Santa's extra-terrestrial expeditions are clearly shown in the docu/mentary film "Santa Claus Conquers The Martians".

        January 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • Sarah Waits

      Your Bible could be more clear. How many continents were there on the now spherical earth in biblical times L4H?

      January 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        God exists outside of space, time and plate tectonics.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • Actually

          God exists outside of sanity.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
  8. Dyslexic doG

    christians claim that the bible is THE WORD of their omnipotent, perfect god.

    So based on the contradictory, ambiguous, brutal, misogynistic, scientifically historically and factually incorrect content of the bible, it amazes me that christians would actually worship such an incoherent, raving, nasty, petulant, sad.istic, confused, lying deity.

    If it was the word of a perfect god then the whole book would be PERFECT! Flawless. There would be absolutely no errors! There would be absolutely no contradictions. There would be absolutely no lines that could be ignored by christians or taken as guidance and not command. There would be no need for translation or interpretation or explanation or apology because it would be perfect.

    Instead, you have a book that either is not the word of an omnipotent perfect god, or if these ARE his words, he is far from omnipotent and perfect

    January 2, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
    • bostontola

      I think you are being generous D doG. There may or may not be God(s), but the biblical God is plainly false. If natural born humans wrote a new bible today it would be much better than the one we have. Any powerful advanced being would have a better bible than that, omniscient or not. The bible is clearly written not just by men, but by Bronze Age men, not any God.

      January 2, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        You aren't giving credit to the generations of compilers, editors and creative translators who whipped the Bible into shape for the confusion of so many people over the time it's been about.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • bostontola

          True. Man has proven to be more creative than the God that purportedly created them.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          *ding ding*
          Clergy were among a very short list of castes that were literate – but what they wrote generally had to go through various committee approvals before distribution.
          I would like to meet the nameless Christian monk who managed to preverse the Anglo-Saxon Epic of Beowulf so long ago.
          The copy we have today it chock full of blatantly transparant "Christianizations" in a very un-christian story with a very un-christian hero.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
  9. Dyslexic doG

    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people!

    – House

    January 2, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
  10. bostontola

    The story of Joshua is iconic of a God on the side of the Israelites. God got directly involved in the tactics and implementation of the battles. What I don't get is why God, that is able to defeat an enemy so easily with hail, would then lay back the next day and let the Israelites fight, but to complete the deed, stop the earth from rotating, impress a Star Trek dampening field so everything on earth wouldn't be destroyed due to inertia instead of just hurling more hail. God already told the Israelites they would win, why ask God to stop the sun? This miracle sounds like a story by people who didn't understand nature would create to show the power of their God to succeeding generations.

    7 So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. 8 The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.”

    9 After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. 10 The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.

    12 On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

    “Sun, stand still over Gibeon,
    and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”
    13 So the sun stood still,
    and the moon stopped,
    till the nation avenged itself on[b] its enemies,
    as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

    The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

    January 2, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • Artie Aardvark

      It's so sad that people can be so gullible and desperate to live in a fantasy world that they actually make themselves believe ridiculous stuff like that.

      January 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        amen!

        January 2, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @bostontola : What I don't get is why God, that is able to defeat an enemy so easily with hail

      Lets argue this from the skeptic viewpoint – hail is a natural phenomenon. So, if this was always the means that God used, then it could easily be argued that it was only a lucky, but natural phenomenon.

      @bostontola : sounds like a story by people who didn't understand nature would create to show the power of their God

      See, either way (hail or miracle), you've got the same answer – God doesn't exist. So, why bother to read the Bible if you have already concluded that God doesn't exist?

      <><

      January 2, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • Bagel Mode

        Live4Him, so are you suggesting that those with a critical view, or just not having a belief-side confirmation bias, should not read the bible? Bostontola presented a great example of one of the many problems with the Christian doctrine, and I suspect that you are just dodging dealing with it because you can't.

        January 2, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • Artie Aardvark

        Out of curiousity, how did you read the Bible and conclude God was real? In just the first few pages, there are two different versions of creation, and they strain credulity. Then we find God losing a wrestling match, a ridiculous flood story, God horribly tormenting Job to prove a point to Satan, a guy in a fish, god-slaughters of towns (but the guy who offered up his daughters for rape was the good one) and first-borns and the entire human race except 8 (and almost all animals, just for jollies), and on and on.

        How did you read the Bible and decide it must be true? Here's a clue: you had already decided before you read it.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • Saraswati

        I think most people in the US have read the bible, and certainly most atheist on this site. We were just less impressed with it than you. I come from a family of diverse religious beliefs and read it with a very open mind. It's just a pretty obvious outdated artifact unless you really want to believe it so hard you overlook reality...as we have all seen you do here dozens of times. Sure there are atheists driven by confirmation bias, but your own outshines any I have seen out of that camp.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • bostontola

        L4H,
        I was brought up with God. I was exposed to the selections of the bible that were used in services. When I read more of the bible I got more and more skeptical. This was around the time I went to college where I took a comparative religion course. It had no bias, just studied the stories of many religions. I took a lot of history courses as well. The more I read the bible, the more I knew it was man made.

        Also, regarding your point that God wanted to do a supernatural act, He could've provided some hint of knowledge beyond the people of that time someplace in the bible, but He didn't. He could have told the Israelites about microorganisms, especially since they are so key to the creation of all other life forms. He could have told the Israelites about transcendental numbers so they wouldn't think Pi equals 3. He could have told the Israelites that the universe is very old, that there are records of His creation in the cosmic background radiation, that radiation is has both particle and wave behavior, that stars were created long before the earth, and that He used stars to create the heavy elements used in earth, that energy from the sun powers chemistry and evolution, etc, etc. any of these things, or thousands of other simpler things could have been revealed and we would know God was real.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @bostontola : I was brought up with God.

          So did every Jew after the exodus – yet they still turned away from God prior to the exile.

          @bostontola : It had no bias, just studied the stories of many religions.

          boy, they fooled you! EVERY book, experiment, etc. has biases. Some of them are mitigated and some are not, but regardless, the biases exist.

          @bostontola : He could've provided some hint of knowledge beyond the people of that time someplace in the bible

          He DID – remember the 'circle' of the earth issue we're discussing on this thread? Likewise, re-birth of Israel, and many others. And no, I'm not going to get into all the other chaff that is in your post. I'll stick to a single point until resolution.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • bostontola

          L4H,
          Asserting bias with absolutely no knowledge of the teacher or text book is foolish, does a calculus text book have bias?

          The circle thing is not advanced knowledge. A circle is an object in 2 dimensions, the earth is higher dimensional.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @bostontola : Asserting bias with absolutely no knowledge of the teacher or text book is foolish, does a calculus text book have bias?

          This is one of the premises of the scientific method – a methodology to eliminate hidden biases.

          @bostontola : The circle thing is not advanced knowledge. A circle is an object in 2 dimensions, the earth is higher dimensional.

          At the time, almost nothing was known about the earth. Yet, God declared the earth was a sphere and it was supported by an invisable force (i.e. gravity). That was very advanced for those times.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • G to the T

          "At the time, almost nothing was known about the earth. Yet, God declared the earth was a sphere and it was supported by an invisable force (i.e. gravity). That was very advanced for those times."

          You've already been shown that it didn't say the earth was a sphere (and even then, the earth isn't a sphere, close, but not a true sphere). 2nd – nothing "supports" the earth (i.e. gravity). The earth doesn't "float" in anything, it's not supported on or in anything. If this is what you are claiming the bible says, then the bible is wrong about the earth.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
        • Fan2C

          bostonola
          "He could have told the Israelites about microorganisms,..."

          Yes, and in contrast "He" (allegedly) directly and specifically TOLD Moses to treat and cure leprosy (caused by a bacterial microorganism) by dipping a live dove in a dead dove's blood and having it fly about, and by anointing the toe and shoulder of the sufferer with the blood (along with some other coo-coo [pun intended] rituals)!

          January 2, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  11. Alias

    @Live4him
    job 26:10 says the world is round.
    Isaiah 40:22 says the world is flat.
    This just seems like a contradiction to me.

    January 2, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
    • Artie Aasrdvark

      There are four different accounts of the resurrection which are totally incompatible. Different numbers of women find different thing, then afterwards do totally different and incompatible thing (as does everyone else). If they can't see that something major like that, no other contradictions will phase them.

      It's pretty obvious that the resurrection story was invented some time afterwards when Christianity had spread a bit, without many detail, and the details were invented in different ways in different places. Two of the gospels are very close (same ur source) until then, then diverge dramatically. It was obviously invented later to deal with obvious criticisms, like how could Mr. Magic Miracles not be able to avoid execution.

      January 2, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Alias : job 26:10 says the world is round.

      We've already agreed that this passage states that the earth is a sphere.

      @Alias : Isaiah 40:22 says the world is flat.

      The word 'flat' is not in the passage, so where do you get it from?

      <><

      January 2, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Job 26:10 in Hebrew:
        חק־חג על־פני־מים
        עד־תכלית אור
        עם־חשך׃

        The term used is ChG, which means a flat circle, like a coin.
        The specific term for a sphere is גלגל העין or "dur" when anglicized.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • Doris

        L4H: "We've already agreed that this passage states that the earth is a sphere."

        No we have not. Even if the intention of the verse meant the surface of the ocean was curved, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the earth was a sphere. For what they knew at the time, the earth could have been like a contact lens, even if they suspected that things revolved around it.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Saraswati

          L4H has used this "we've already agreed" tactic before. It's up there with her/his "today let's discuss" tactic but more deceptive than just the usual sad attempt to sound like a community college professor.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Doris

          And of course I am too certain of myself with "For what they knew..." I don't know what they knew, but from anything I've read so far, it is apparent to me that there was little to no knowledge then beyond a fraction of the world's surface. I of course welcome any evidence to the contrary.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Another fun L4H tactic:
          "Where is your evidence? Oh – you don't have any!" (said while ignoring their own lack of evidence).
          If further citations and evidence are presented, they are ignored and the thread abandoned, sometimes restarted as a separate discussion with no reference to the prior one.
          (see p. 24 of the "Pope approval rating" story for an example.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • Alias

        @Liove4him
        Doc nailed it. The term used is ChG, which means a flat circle, like a coin.
        Although Some sources use chug instead of ChG, I don't see any dissagreement of translation.
        The church also taught that the world was round until several decades after they put Galelio under house arrest for trying to say the bible was wrong.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Fan2C

          The Church objected to Galileo's contention that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the Sun orbits it (geocentrism)... not any flatness idea.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Alias : The term used is ChG, which means a flat circle, like a coin.

          It is a two-dimensional term, unlike a coin. A coin has three dimensions – height and width (which are usually the same) and thickness. However, a boundary (like the equator) is two dimensional. And the Hebrew terms form a conjuction of 'boundary and encircles'.

          @Alias : Although Some sources use chug instead of ChG, I don't see any dissagreement of translation.

          FYI – the Ancient Biblical Hebrew doesn't contain any vowels – so this is not out of order. The vowels were added during the Massoretic times (the dots / dash below the characters). So a purist would keep ChG, while others would go with chug.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Alias

          Well at least we aggree the bible says one thing in one place, and contradicts itself in another.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
    • Observer

      (Isaiah 11:12) “And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the FOUR CORNERS of the earth.”

      January 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
      • Bible Bob, Knight of Infallibillibabbitty

        Those were really round corners, Bub.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
  12. Observer

    (Matt. 4:8) “Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.”

    From the top of Mount Ararat, the horizon for our SPHERICAL earth is approximately 158 miles maximum in all directions. The "kingdoms of the world" would NOT have included: North America, South America, Australia, China or Greece.

    It would ONLY be possible THEORETICALLY if the world was FLAT.

    January 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
    • Reality # 2

      Did Matthew "steal" this myth (4:8) from Buddha?? Hmmm??

      To wit:

      Marcus Borg [Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings] notes the following traditions about the Buddha that provide something of a parallel to this cluster:

      Then Mara the evil one drew near to him, and said: "Let the Exalted One exercise governance, let the Blessed One rule."

      "Now what, O evil one, do you have in view, that you speak this way to me?"

      "If the Exalted One were to wish the Himalayas, king of the mountains, to be gold, he might determine it to be so, and the mountains would become a mass of gold?'

      The Exalted One responded: "Were the mountains all of shimmering gold, it would still not be enough for one man's wants. He that has seen suffering - how should that man succu-mb to desires?"

      Then Mara the evil one thought: "The Exalted One knows me! The Blessed One knows me!" And sad and sorrowful he vanished then and there. (Samyutta Nikaya 4.2.10)

      During the six years that the Bodhisattva practiced austerities, the demon followed behind him step by step, seeking an opportunity to harm him. But he found no opportunity whatsoever and went away discouraged and discontent. (Lalitavistara Sutra 18)

      I thought: "Suppose I practice entirely cutting off food?' Then the deities came to me and said: "Good sir, do not practice entirely cutting off food. If you do so, we shall infuse heavenly food into the pores of your skin and you will live on that." (Majjhima Nikaya 36.27)

      (http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb139.html

      January 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Observer : The "kingdoms of the world" would NOT have included: North America, South America, Australia, China or Greece.

      In 30 AD, how many kingdoms existed in North America? Likewise, in South America? Who were the kings of these kingdoms?

      <><

      January 2, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
      • Bagel Mode

        How long do you think humans have existed, and in which places?

        January 2, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • Observer

        Live4Him

        So tell us that the kingdoms of Greece and China didn't exist in 30 AD.

        Get serious.

        January 2, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        L4H. Are you suggesting that they should be discounted because you are not aware of the ruler? The point was the limited visibility.

        January 2, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          L4H, Where does the bible say they were viewing from the moon (presuming it was at a suitable point in its orbit).

          January 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • Observer

        Live4Him,

        From Wikipedia:

        The first evidence for the existence of the human race in South America dates back to about 9000 BC

        Ooops!

        January 2, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Observer : So tell us that the kingdoms of Greece and China didn't exist in 30 AD.

          I haven't. However, these kingdoms could be viewed similtaneously from a mountain on the moon.

          @Observer : The first evidence for the existence of the human race in South America dates back to about 9000 BC

          A civilization does not equate to a kingdom.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • Live4Him

          Additionally, if one viewed the earth for a period of time (i.e. 24 hours) all the earth could be seen, even if there were no kingdoms in a given part of the earth.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Johnny

          It is amazing that Live4Him will take the word kingdom to mean literally a kingdom in this instance, but in the case of the word circle it somehow actually means a sphere.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him,

          "However, these kingdoms could be viewed similtaneously from a mountain on the moon'

          Please tell us just ONE POINT where the Bible talks about ANYONE going to the moon.

          KINGDOM: noun, "A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign".

          January 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          on wrong thread

          L4H, Where does the bible say they were viewing from the moon (presuming it was at a suitable point in its orbit).

          January 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him

          "Additionally, if one viewed the earth for a period of time (i.e. 24 hours) all the earth could be seen, even if there were no kingdoms in a given part of the earth"

          NOT from a mountain on the EARTH.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Observer : Please tell us just ONE POINT where the Bible talks about ANYONE going to the moon.

          Where does it say the location is at then?

          @Observer : KINGDOM: noun, "A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign".

          Right – there were none in North & South America.

          Observer : NOT from a mountain on the EARTH.

          Where does it say the location is on earth?

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him

          A sovereign is a supreme ruler. So the ancient people in South America had no supreme rulers, right. Please consult a dictionary rather than make up your own limited definitions.

          You can win this argument if you tell us how the human being named Jesus flew to the moon with the Devil. Please site specific Bible verses and explain how he breathed up there.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Johnny

          It is even more amazing that Live4Him is now trying to claim that Jesus and Satan went to the moon.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          L4H
          The Gospel of Luke (4:5) does not mention a mountain.

          Another inconsistency in the gospels.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • Johnny

          If they were on the moon they wouldn't even need a mountain.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Observer

          Johnny,

          Good point. Thanks for injecting more logic against a completely illogical argument.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Observer : So the ancient people in South America had no supreme rulers, right.

          Rulers or supreme rulers – That is the issue.

          @Observer : You can win this argument if you tell us how the human being named Jesus flew to the moon with the Devil.

          Thanks – You gave me an easy one! God (i.e. Jesus) is outside of time and space. So, he could as easily travel to the moon in a moment as he could from a 'very high mountain'. Since there were no 'very high mountains' in the land of Israel and since he got there in less than a day, it implies that he left this time / space.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • igaftr

          It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of garbage L4H will make up out of thin air to justify the belief in a book, that other men made up out of thin air....just amazing.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          How did Jesus do it?
          Maaaaaaagic *cue jazz hands*

          January 2, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Johnny

          No, moron, it implies that the person who wrote that part of the bible thought you could climb a mountain and see the entire earth because he believed it to be flat. Thus proving that your average third grader is smarter than the author of that particular part of the bible.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Angry Beaver with dull teeth

          Johnny

          It is amazing that Live4Him will take the word kingdom to mean literally a kingdom in this instance, but in the case of the word circle it somehow actually means a sphere.
          -
          Selective Faith

          January 2, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him,

          "Jesus is outside of time and space. So, he could as easily travel to the moon in a moment"

          So if Jesus is a non-human, non-breathing existence, then it certainly doesn't look like any big "sacrifice" for a temporary "death".

          January 2, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
      • igaftr

        In 30 AD, how many kingdoms existed in North America? Likewise, in South America? Who were the kings of these kingdoms?

        Unknown, since written records are rare. Plus, kingdom implies a king, whereas there are many different societies and cultures that did not involve kings. In the area around where I live, The five tribes of the Iroquios were thriving in 30 AD, and for many thousand years before...at least for 15, 000 years, likely around 25, 000 years.

        They knew nothing of your Jesus character.

        January 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Iroquois are just a lost tribe of Israel, cast out for bearing the mark of Cain (melanin).

          (This history lesson brought to you by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)

          January 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • igaftr

          Yeah...according to the convicted con-man and racist turned self proclaimed prophet, Joseph Smith. Amazing that so many STILL believe this guy....sad really.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • Shadowflash1522

          Don't forget everyone's favorite Big 3 of human sacrifice: the Aztecs (Mexico), Maya (Lower Yucatan), and Inca (Peru)

          Vast empires, advanced societies, ruled by emperors and kings–if that doesn't meet the definition of "supreme ruler" and "kingdom" then I don't know what does.

          For that matter, don't leave out the Chinese, who were more advanced than the Romans and believed their emperors ruled by the will of Heaven. Perfect example of a kingdom, not viewable from any mountains in the Middle East.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Shadowflash1522 : the Aztecs (Mexico), Maya (Lower Yucatan), and Inca (Peru)

          And none of them existed in 30 AD.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • BRC

          @Live4Him,
          Well, that's just false-

          AS to the Mayans (from wikipedia for their clean summary)
          Scholars continue to discuss when this era of Maya civilization began. Discoveries of Maya occupation at Cuello, Belize have been carbon dated to around 2600 BCE.[2][3] The people built monumental structures. The Maya calendar, which is based on the so-called Mesoamerican Long Count calendar, begins on a date equivalent to 11 August 3114 BC.

          The most widely accepted view, as of 2010[update], is that the first clearly Maya settlements were established around 1800 BCE in the Soconusco region of the Pacific Coast[citation needed]. This period, known as the Early Preclassic,[4] was characterized by sedentary communities and the introduction of pottery and fired clay figurines.[5]

          Around 100 AD, a widespread decline and abandonment of Maya cities occurred – called the Preclassic Collapse. This marked the end of the Preclassic era.[8]

          January 2, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Olmec civilization of south-central Mexico existed from at least 1000BCE until around 400BCE.
          The Zapotecs of southern Mesoamerica were around 2,500 years ago.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Nada

          Live4Him

          @Shadowflash1522 : the Aztecs (Mexico), Maya (Lower Yucatan), and Inca (Peru)

          And none of them existed in 30 AD.
          -------
          Good lord, try reading

          January 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Actually

          The Maya date back to at least 1800 BCE.

          January 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • G to the T

          @ Actually – "The Maya date back to at least 1800 BCE."

          THANK YOU! Couldn't believe no one bothered to call him on that.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
  13. Live4Him

    @Alias : no L4H

    Okay, lets make this simple. Lets stick to a single topic and work to an agreement on that topic before moving to the next topic. This will help eliminate any confusion and we can make progress in the discussion.

    1) Do you agree that Job 26:10 A boundary encircles the earth between light and darkness indicates a spherical earth?

    Just give me a yes or a no and you're reasoning for such answer. Don't bother bringing up other verses at this time. We'll deal with them after we finish this verse.

    <><

    January 2, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
    • Qcity

      “Who told Isaiah that the earth was a circle? Until the fifteenth century, the greatest minds believed it was flat. And how did the writer of Job know that the earth hung upon nothing? The Greeks were sure that it was held up by a giant named Atlas. Others believed that there were five tremendous columns supporting it. We laugh at that now, but this is what the ancients believed.”

      “Not until 1961 did man first view earth from space with his own eyes and prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the earth is round and hung upon nothing. How did Isaiah and the author of Job know?”

      Charlie Duke

      January 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        A circle is flat. lol

        January 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • Qcity

          "I was able to look out the window to see this incredible sight of the whole circle of the Earth. Oceans were crystal blue, the land was brown, and the clouds and the snow were pure white. And that jewel of Earth was just hung up in the blackness of space."

          Charlie Duke, astronaut

          He saw the circle of the Earth.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Yep. From far away a sphere looks a lot like a circle-which is flat.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Qcity

          From a different perspective, say God's, the Earth looks a lot like a circle-which is flat.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • Alias

          so, if an astronut used the word 'cirlce' while looking at the earth, the bible is correct in everything it says???
          Thanks. I inderstand now.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          What possible "perspective" could omnipresence have?

          It seems to me that if god wanted to ensure we would take the bible seriously he could have been a lot more definite and included a lot more facts than, "Hey, you see how the moon looks circular and flat-well guess what?? Your land is a flat circle, too!!"

          January 2, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • Qcity

          Oh darn. Because that was exactly my point. I should have just said that in the first place.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • ??!

          You don't think it's a bit weird that GOD, who CREATED Earth, wouldn't know that it's not a circle?? Or couldn't clearly communicate that? Gimme a break.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • Qcity

          What was the original word used? How does it translate?

          January 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          It translates "circle" not "sphere." The hebrews had a word for "sphere," but they didn't use it in this verse.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
        • Qcity

          Note, the Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” (חוג—chuwg) can also mean “round” or “sphere.”

          January 2, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • Observer

          Qcity

          "From a different perspective, say God's, the Earth looks a lot like a circle-which is flat"

          Right. God created it and doesn't know the difference..

          January 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • Qcity

          He described it as a circle. Doesn't mean he didn't know it was a sphere. Our language allows us to do things like that.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • andrew

          who told moses that in "the BEGINNING God created heaven & Earth" ???? Why, ony 70years ago Einstein was struggling to reconcile his theory of relativity with a constant unverse that had existed forever!!!

          January 15, 2014 at 1:22 am |
      • Wow, you are quite the brainiac

        Anyone by the edge of the sea can watch a boat sail off and watch as it's shape appears to sink over the horizon. Anyone on a boat can see the land slowly rise as they make landfall. Most sailors knew the earth was sperical for millenia. Indeed, the Greeks fairly accurately measured the circumference of the Earth in two and a half centuries before Jesus.

        It wasn't up for debate in 1961. Oh, and Duke didn't "see a circle." He saw an oblate spheriod.

        January 2, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Qcity

          He described it as a circle. Doesn't mean he didn't know it was a sphere. Our language allows us to do things like that.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Qcity

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Duke ~ Charlie said it. Not me.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Fan2C

          Qcity,

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

          Read the whole thing... and quit your "gawwwleee!"

          January 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
    • Alias

      King James translation: He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

      I don't how that quote clearly says the world is round or flat.

      January 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Alias : King James translation

        Neither you nor I readily understand the Old English found in the KJV, so why use it?

        @Alias : He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

        This appears that you've backed away from your claim that the earth is a flat circle.

        @Alias : I don't how that quote clearly says the world is round or flat.

        You're right – it doesn't say the earth is flat. However, compassed is defined with the following definition: the enclosing line or limits of any area. So this appears to support the previous translation of "encirclement".

        <><

        January 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Alias

          Fine. If you think that says the world is round, I'll go with it.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Alias : If you think that says the world is round, I'll go with it.

          Since you agree that this verse indicates a spherical earth, why don't you start a new thread and present a verse that you want to discuss. This way, you won't accuse me of being selective.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • ??!

          Now you're going to try and dictate which version of the BIBLE to use, L4 H? Aren't they ALL the inerrant word of God?

          The way you rationalize everything makes me laugh... You are the most unknowingly hilarious poster on here....

          January 2, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • Observer

          LIve4Him

          "However, compassed is defined with the following definition: the enclosing line or limits of ANY AREA."

          So that means it has to be a circle, RIGHT? Wow. So an area enclosed by random lines is out?

          January 2, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Observer : So that means it has to be a circle, RIGHT?

          The equator encompasses the earth. Is the earth flat?

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him

          "The equator encompasses the earth. Is the earth flat?"

          The equator is a flat 2-dimensional line. Such a line could encompass a tin can, too. Are we shaped like a tin can?

          January 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Observer : The equator is a flat 2-dimensional line.

          Like the boundary between light and darkness.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • igaftr

      There is no boundary between light and dark. Light is light, dark is absense of light. They describe the same thing.
      The bible also says god created a light , indicating the moon...but the moon is not a light, it reflects light.

      January 2, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
    • Observer

      The boundary is the edge of a shadow. Check your shadow to see if that indicates a sphere.

      January 2, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
    • ?

      L4H
      Hard to have an intelligent conversation with someone that does not know the difference between a circle and a sphere.

      January 2, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
    • Alias

      For a more complete discussion, here is 7 through 14:
      7 He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. 9 He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. 10 He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.11 The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. 12 By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces. 13 By his breath the skies became fair; his hand pierced the gliding serpent.14 And these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?"

      I still don't see what you are trying to get to. Even if some translation says the world is round in this passage, the bible rather clearly says the world is flat in others.

      January 2, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • Live4Him

        @Alias : Even if some translation says the world is round in this passage, the bible rather clearly says the world is flat in others.

        Well, if you agree that this passage indicates a spherical earth, then we can move on to them. Do you agree?

        <><

        January 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • ?

          L4H
          How can you be so obtuse looking at an object that appears to be a circle does not also indicate it is a sphere.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
    • LC

      So exactly why is it all right to being up another verse when Alias wasn't referring to that verse in the first place? And then be told the parameters of what you will and won't discuss?

      Arrogance. Condescension. L4H.

      January 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
    • Doris

      L4H: "A boundary encircles the earth between light and darkness"

      What the heck is that from, the FXNWS translation?

      I see another translation stating:
      “He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.”

      Even if the circle was meant to indicate a curved surface, it doesn't necessarily indicate a sphere. For what they knew at the time, the earth could have been like a contact lens – even suspecting that some things rotated around it.

      January 2, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
  14. Uncle Joe

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hzZ7p7Zu978

    January 2, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
    • Alias

      Watched the whole thing waiting for ploe dancing.
      Left dissapointed.

      January 2, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
      • Bagel Mode

        Funny, Alias. good one.

        January 2, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
  15. Madtown

    In reference to the picture accompanying this headline, will someone wake up the gentleman in the 2nd row, third from right? I hope he didn't fall forward.

    January 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
  16. Austin

    Austin

    Isaiah 40:31 ►

    but those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.

    January 2, 2014 at 11:41 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      It is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more.
      – Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

      January 2, 2014 at 11:47 am |
      • Live4Him

        Who is Harry Potter? 🙂

        January 2, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • In Santa we trust

          A fictional character in a book. Same credentials as a god.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          LOL

          January 2, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • Johnny

          IN Santa we trust, Harry Potter hasn't murdered nearly as many people as god has.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
    • At Barnes and Noble

      https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152092272477418

      January 2, 2014 at 11:52 am |
    • Reality # 2

      Isaiah, one of the many useless OT fortune tellers !!!

      January 2, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
    • Theonone

      You have a dream about an eagle that swoops down to grab some running shoes, and you interpreted it to mean that line of scripture? Aside from the word "eagle" and "run", the two have nothing in common.

      This should be proof to you, Austin, not that you are receiving actual visions from God, but that you are inventing it yourself. The dream and the line don't have anything in common in content, just in a couple random words.

      It's your worst "vision" yet.

      Get help, and do not own guns.

      January 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
  17. Alias

    I just don't understand how so many people can have such blind faith in a book that is as flawed as the bible.
    That book is what destroyed my faith.

    January 2, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Isaac Asimov:
      "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

      January 2, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Alias : I just don't understand how so many people can have such blind faith in a book that is as flawed as the bible.

      Flawed in what way?

      <><

      January 2, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        really?

        January 2, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        the fact that Christians claim that this book written by ignorant primitive men is the word of their god, makes me aghast that Christians would actually worship such an incoherent, raving, nasty, petulant, sad.istic, confused, lying deity. If it was the word of a perfect god then the whole book would be perfect. there would be no errors. there would be no lines that could be ignored or taken as guidance and not command, there would be no need for translation or interpretation because it would be perfect. It is endlessly flawed.

        January 2, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • In Santa we trust

        L4H. Flawed in the same ways that are poster here daily for as long as I can remember.

        January 2, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • Alias

        Contradictions, For example, there are 3 gospels that record jusus' last words on the cross differently.
        Logical errors. i.e. the all powerful creator of everything had to get a married virgin pregnant and kill the child. He had no other choice if he wanted to save us all from the sin Adam commiited.
        The Earth is not flat, and it moves.
        etc, etc, etc ......

        January 2, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • Live4Him

          @Alias : The Earth is not flat, and it moves.

          Oh, yes – I remember discussing this one recently. And regardless of all the evidence shown to you, you insist that the verse below indicates a flat earth. Well, I guess some people are just obtuse – or, more likely, reject any evidence that is contrary to their a priori beliefs.

          Job 26:10 "A boundary encircles the earth between light and darkness"

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • Alias

          wrong verse,
          but good strawman tactic.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • Alias

          There is one verse in the OT which has often been cited at least by laymen as a proof that the earth was understood to be a globe. I refer to Isaiah 40:22 which says god is sitting above the circle of the earth. This verse does imply that the earth is circular, but there is nothing either in the underlying Hebrew word (hug) or in the context which necessarily implies anything more than the circularity of the flat earth-disc which the historical context and Genesis 1 have given us as the meaning of. If Isaiah had intended to speak of the earth as a globe, he would probably have used the word he used in 22:18 (dur), meaning 'ball.'

          January 2, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          oh the irony of a Christian accusing an atheist of "reject any evidence that is contrary to their a priori beliefs."

          January 2, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
        • Alias

          @Live4him
          Now, what about my other points?
          Contradictions and logic fails?

          January 2, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • Live4Him

          @Alias : wrong verse, but good strawman tactic.

          You mean, you want to employ the strawman. Why do you want to ignore the facts? Of course – they don't fit your apriori conclusions.

          Job 26:10 "A boundary encircles the earth between light and darkness"

          @Alias : god is sitting above the circle of the earth.

          Actually, this is saying "god is sitting above the encirclement of the earth". This was pointed out to you, but you likewise reject it due to your own issues with facts.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        • Alias

          no L4H,
          Isaiah 40:22 says the world is flat, like a coin.
          You are picking a random bible quote and making a strawman arguement, while ignoring the relevant facts in the bible.
          And once more, what about my other points?
          The earth moves, the bible does clearly have contradictions, and there are logical errors.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • Observer

          Live4Him

          "Actually, this is saying "god is sitting above the encirclement of the earth".

          NO. ACTUALLY this is saying "god is sitting above the circle of the earth."

          January 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The Hebrew word used in the original text is "Chug", which means a flat circle, like a coin.
          The word for orb/ball is "Dur".
          The bible posits a flat Earth.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
      • Johnny

        Anyone who says the bible doesn't have any contradictions or flaws is either really really dumb, or even worse, a liar.

        January 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
  18. Dyslexic doG

    CNN Belief Blog
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a Duck Dynasty Story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story
    – a catholic story

    January 2, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • Look at the evidence

      The atheists love those kinds of story.

      January 2, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • Alias

      What do you expect in a blog for a majority christian country?
      BTW – if you use the International version of the CNN home page, the OPINION tab isn't available. You have to be in the US Edition to even see that tab,

      January 2, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • Live4Him

      Try again:

      Catholic
      Catholic
      Catholic
      Christmas
      Catholic
      Atheist
      Duck Dynasty
      Polygamy
      Duck Dynasty
      Polygamy
      Catholic

      January 2, 2014 at 11:38 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        thanks for doing the research. 🙂

        my point was that with thousands of religions, why the catholic focus? Even with an American focus, we should see more from the countless different christian sects and more muslim, hindu, Mormon, scientology, jewish. catholics are around 24% of the population in America so why this many catholic stories?

        January 2, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • Live4Him

          @Dyslexic doG : my point was that with thousands of religions, why the catholic focus

          And you obviously missed my point – which was to prove that the forum is more diverse that you claimed.

          <><

          January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          you think 50% catholic stories is diversity? ok. sure.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • LC

          Why are you such a condescending, obtuse bitch, Hate4Him? Every one of your posts are arrogant and smug.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • Saraswati

          I suspect its just a matter of drawing on what are current popular google search terms. What they want are hits, and they will provide stories containing the necessary top key words.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
    • LeSigh

      1st World Atheist Problem

      January 2, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
  19. palintwit

    If I was Sarah Palin I would take a nice, warm bath with my favorite electric toaster.

    January 2, 2014 at 11:04 am |
  20. lunchbreaker

    So the Bible does say that the path to Heaven is the narrow road, meaning the majority of people born will burn in Hell for eternity. So by having a baby, the odds are your beloved child will burn forever. Now you may be thinking that your a good Christian parent and your kid will be a Christian. Well both of my parents were Christians, I went to a private Christian school for 14 years of my life, and I am not a Christian. Seems like quite the gamble to bring a child into the world.

    January 2, 2014 at 10:49 am |
    • John D.

      I think for Christians it means we must keep our eyes on Christ, the narrow path. And not on anything else the broad path that leads to destruction. Many have something in their life besides God and it will end up in their destruction. Jesus said He was the only way and a religion won't save you. Anything that is the absence or rejection of Christ or adding something or someone with Christ will end in doom.

      January 2, 2014 at 11:07 am |
      • Damocles

        So these horrid things I have in my life like family, friends, cute pets, hobbies... these things are going to lead to my doom and destruction?

        January 2, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • John D

          No.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • Damocles

          Oh, because you said this: Many have something in their life besides God and it will end up in their destruction.

          Was just curious.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • John D

          It didn't say don't have family, friends, cute pets, and/or hobbies. You did.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • Alias

          So please tell us what things in our lifes will get us tortured for ever.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • John D

          I don't know if anything gets you tortured for ever. I think Lunchbreaker's conclusion: "meaning the majority of people born will burn in Hell for eternity" is faulty.

          I believe there will be justice and good will overcome evil.

          For me, destruction in my life comes from me putting material things like money or possessions in front of relationships with others. And I've found a lot of self-centeredness leads to ruin for me. You know, thinks like greed, envy and lust.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          What if you're wrong, John? Will it bother you at all to hang out with your god if many humans are in a place of eternal torture that your god wants to exist and utilizes? If god is allowing humans to be tortured forever and ever in hell, will it affect you and your heavenly pleasures at all?

          January 2, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • John D

          If you are right and evil defeats good, I doubt I'm in heaven.

          What are heavenly pleasures?

          January 2, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          You're missing the point, John. The bible implies that your god does only "good" and yet he also allows a place of eternal torture to exist where he sends his enemies to fry forever and ever (even though he tells us to love our enemies).

          Heavenly pleasures simply refers to heaven; I think most people assume it will be fun and not a drag–enjoyable and not painful.

          I'm asking what your response will be in heaven, in god's presence, if the scenario that most christians put forth (that I have outlined above) is correct. It won't be "evil triumphing over good," because your god gets to decide what labels to use, and if eternal torture is his plan than he thinks it's "good."

          Comprende?

          January 2, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • John D

          Most Christians I know have a loving God that is revealed through Jesus Christ. A God that sacrifices and saves, not torments and condemns.

          Will I be upset that if instead of Jesus I die and meet your angry and vengeful God? Yes.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          So you'll be upset, then. What will you do? Will you just keep going along and enjoying heaven, anyway?

          January 2, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • John D

          Hypothetically if your imaginary world is true I doubt something like a "heavenly pleasure" would be a good thing. I can't imagine I would be anywhere but some kind of hell ruled by evil.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Fair enough, John. If you get to heaven and find out that your god is allowing people to spend an eternity in fiery torture when He could just eliminate that lake of fire, you can just know that you're actually in hell even though god calls it "heaven." Cool.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • John D

          The point of me posting Matthew 10:28 was to show that God will "destroy both soul and body in hell".

          "The Lord preserves all who love him; but all the wicked will he destroy."
          Psalm 145:20

          I don't believe there will be eternal torture like you imagine.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Yes, John, you can interpret it that way, and many other christians I have spoken with interpret it to mean that the destruction is so slow a process that it takes forever--literally. And yet other christians throw around the verses that explicitly state that hell suffering is eternal-some of them are even the "red letter" verses that quote jesus.

          Either way, Jesus is saying to not be afraid of a smaller threat but to be afraid of a larger threat. The message is "be afraid" and so do _______: terrorism, by any definition of the word.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • John D

          Well, if I had an angry and vengeful God I would probably say that, too. But I don't.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          I agree, John, you have a nice god that aligns with your perspective; however, most christians believe that god will allow humans to be tortured for quite a while in a pit of fire with satan and demons, and those christians are at perfect peace hanging out with a god who allows that.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • Nada

          John D

          Hypothetically if your imaginary world is true
          ---------–

          Priceless

          January 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Awww. Take it easy on John. It's not easy quoting verses that only contain the verb "fear" and then coming up with ways to say that it's not telling anyone to fear the threat described.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • John D

          What did Jesus say before that? And after that? You know, the context?

          January 2, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        John D., I reject christ simply because I cannot imagine the horror of having to spend eternity with a disgusting being that utilizes a place of eternal torture rather than destroy it. My morals would not allow me to hang out with Hitler or bin Laden or any being who calls lengthy torture "good." I'd rather suffer in your god's torture chamber than enjoy being in the presence of a being who would allow it.

        Also, god is invisible, undetectable, and apparently, irrelevant. So it makes more sense to disbelieve than believe.

        January 2, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • John D

          Thanks for your 2 cents. 😉

          January 2, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          I'll never understand how believers can call themselves moral and yet look forward to hanging out with the most horrific torturer ever imagined.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:20 am |
        • John D

          Perhaps if your understanding and judgements are right. But you may be wrong about everything you are talking about.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Yes, I could be wrong about anything or everything. I'm merely going by what the believers of the bible god most often tell me and what makes sense to believe from the bible and god's "word" within it. If you don't believe in a god that allows a lake of fire to exist as a destination for people, then my stance won't matter much to you.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • John D

          It is about hope for me, not despair.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          That's fine, John, but I can't approach a "holy text" with hypocrisy. If I'm going to believe it, then I'm going to believe all of it. Although the bible is too contradi.ctory to "believe all of it," it seems pretty clear on the eternal torture thing, and I really don't see any hope or goodness in allowing people to exist in eternal torment as bible god does.

          So you see, it's my strong morals that keep me from wanting to hang out with a torturer and from lying to myself by being hypocritical and believing some parts of the bible more sincerely than other parts.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • John D

          Sound like you have rationalized it out pretty well. Good job on having such strong morals and rigorous honesty in your life.

          Not everyone has drawn the same conclusion as you. I'm still agnostic on a lot of things and am still learning. I do know not all believe that God will torture people for eternity. I know some people like you, and some Christians, that believe that is God's plan. I don't see it that way.

          Like Matthew 10:28 states: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

          January 2, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Well, the eternal torture thing is secondary; the reason I don't believe in any gods is because I have not yet seen any evidence that would make me consider the claim as viable. All gods described to me have been invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant. If you know of a god that can be proved to be visible or detectable or relevant, then I would gladly consider it.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Also, John, the verse you provide merely disgusts me. It contains a terroristic threat about destruction (murder) and requires action based in fear. I would not consider any god "good" who requires fear in response to threats. And if your god is "One" who "destroys" body and soul, then he's not a god I would call good.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • John D

          I think Matthew 28 was speaking to people who were standing up to fear. Not a threat that makes one retreat into fear.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          It's a threat, pure and simple, John. It's saying to not be afraid of people who can only kill your body but to instead be afraid of a being who can kill your body and torture you in a pit of eternal fire. The verse is asking people to ignore a minor threat and to be really extremely frightened of a much bigger nastiness. That verse is pure terrorism, John.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • John D

          Nah. It is saying that human beings are not in ultimate control. God is.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Now John, you're just lying. Any moron can see that the verse is saying to not be concerned about a small threat only to the body but to be much more concerned about a HUGE threat to death for the body AND an eternal "soul."

          This example is PRECISELY why I can't do the christian doublethink and believe in your religion.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • John D

          Calm down. You don't know everything there is to know about this verse. There are tons of commentary available online. And not everyone draws the same conclusion as you.

          I'm not lying. I'm being honest. I was trying to engage in a respectful conversation about the topic.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          I'm perfectly calm, John. The verse has one point: Don't worry about the small threat, FEAR the MUCH bigger threat.

          We can quibble over the specifics of that larger threat, but it's a "bad thing" much bigger than death.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • John D

          Right. Evil can temporarily harm, but not destroy you. Only God can destroy you. And if you are evil, God will destroy you.

          Have no fear of evil. God will overcome it.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          The action Jesus requests from his listeners was FEAR. That's the action verb. I'm not afraid of evil, but I do wish you would see it when it's staring you in the face. God/Jesus wanted the listeners to FEAR. That's the action required. Look at the verb.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • John D

          Put it in context.

          "The disciples are about to go and proclaim the gospel and will likely face persecution from the religious leaders and law-lovers. Got it? Good. Now here, in point form, is everything Jesus says to encourage them.

          But don’t be afraid of these men because a day of reckoning is coming when their hypocrisy will be exposed for the sham it is (Matt 10:26).

          Ha – you want to know who to be afraid of? It’s not these clowns who can only hurt your bodies. There is One far scarier than these guys – One who is able to destroy both body and soul (Mat 10:28).

          That scary One is your Father who loves you and cares for you (Mat 10:29).
          As you encounter the opposition of wicked men, remember that Almighty God is for you and will vindicate you. So don’t be afraid (Mat 10:30)."

          http://escapetoreality.org/2013/07/09/matthew-10v28-fear-god/

          January 2, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          John, don't do this. Don't twist and contort just to feel more comfortable about what your bible says.

          The verse says to not fear a smaller threat from man but to fear a larger threat from god.

          The verse COMMANDS Jesus' listeners to FEAR. That's the action verb used. That's the command given. That's the key word: FEAR

          Why are you christians so willfully blind to your own bible?

          January 2, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • John D

          I think the author of that article gives an interesting alternative view. I think he demonstrates a good understanding of the subject.

          I have heard other views, from non-Chrisitans like you and fundamentalist Christians that I don't agree with.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • John D

          “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” (Mat 10:28-31)

          Reading what he said exactly after that kind of puts a damper on your terrorist theory.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          John, Jesus is telling people to be afraid of his big mean daddy who will put people into hell instead of just kill their body.

          It's terrorism, plain and simple. The only verb used is "fear," and it's a used as a command. YOU...FEAR!!

          You can spin until you're dizzy, but you can't change the verb and you can't change the wording and you can't change reality. Deal with it.

          It always surprises me how christians will claim a verse says THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what it says when they personally don't agree with what it really says. It's astounding to witness. Truly.

          January 2, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
        • John D

          "Read Matthew 10:28 out of context and you’ll end up insecure and anxious. But read this verse in context and you’ll end up secure, encouraged, and confident of your Father’s great love."

          http://escapetoreality.org/2013/07/09/matthew-10v28-fear-god/

          January 2, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
      • Madtown

        Jesus said He was the only way
        ----
        The huge problem with this, is that not all of humanity is aware of Christ's existence. How can he be the "only way" for humanity, when this is the case?

        January 2, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • John D

          Yes, Jesus said He was the way to His disciples after they started to express anxiety and doubt after Jesus told them he was leaving.

          Thomas said to Jesus: “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

          And Jesus told Thomas: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

          And Philip said: “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

          January 2, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • Madtown

          Yes, Jesus said He was the way
          ---–
          That's great. You didn't answer the question(not that you can). How can he be the "only way", when so many of God's creations are not aware of his existence? What if another spiritual figure from a different religion that you're not aware of is really the "only way"? Why couldn't this be the case?

          January 2, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • John D

          It is Jesus' way, not my way.

          I think he has a plan of salvation for God's whole creation, not just my part of it. Will Jesus offer his salvation to those who don't know Him yet? I would imagine so. He was doing that when He was first alive. Religious leaders got upset with Jesus for offering his love to the wrong people and at the wrong time. I'm sure it will still be the same today.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • Madtown

          It is Jesus' way, not my way.
          -----
          It's your way in that you accept it and follow it's principles. The point is, if you're not aware of the existence of Christ and christianity, you'd follow and accept a different way, through no fault of your own.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • John D

          Yes. No kidding.

          Like Peter Gomes says:
          "The Christian Bible more than once makes the point that God’s ways are not our ways, and that the mind of God is vastly different from our own minds. Thus, when Christians state categorically that Jews, or Muslims, or believers in other faith systems are outside the provisions of God, they utter arrogant nonsense. A respectful agnosticism is called for when often there is offered in its place a self-interested certainty. If God is the God of all, and not just a tribal deity, then God has made provision, not necessarily known to us, for the healing and care of all his creation, and not simply our little part of it."

          "If there is any good news that is truly good news for everybody, and not just for a few somebodies, it is this: God is greater and more generous than the best of those who profess to know and serve him. This is the radical nonconformity with the conventional wisdom that Jesus both proclaimed and exemplified, and, alas, it cost him his life. Will we hope to fare any better, as disciples of his nonconformity?"

          January 2, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • Madtown

          Yes. No kidding.
          --
          Well good for you. You acknowledge that your preferred way of seeing spirituality/religion isn't the "correct" one, it's just your choice. That is good. Many christians don't see it this way.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • John D

          I sislike when people insist their way is the only way.

          January 2, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Madtown

          I sislike when people insist their way is the only way.
          ----–
          So do I, however you have repeatedly quoted Jesus as saying he is "the only way to the Father." If someone truly believes there is only "1 way", then they hang a lot of their human brothers/sisters out to dry. I'm not comfortable with this.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • Johnny

          so JohnD, do you dislike Jesus? He did say his way was the only way.

          January 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • John D

          Jesus told his disciples he is the way after they asked him what is the way. The only time I've mentioned "the way" is in reference to someone else mentioning it.

          January 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
      • Damocles

        Hmmm... looking back at your post... keep your eyes on Christ... check...not on anything else... check... *anything* that is the abscence or rejection or the adding of someone or something will end in doom.... check.

        Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for anything else.

        January 2, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • Damocles

          Sort of in the wrong place. Ah well.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • John D

          Family, friends, cute pets, and hobbies don't necessarily lead to absence or rejection of Christ. They can. But they can also be used to enhance one's relationship with Jesus.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • Damocles

          Yes, but, you stated that you must keep your eye on the offspring to the exclusion of all else.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
        • John D

          Yea, I was saying Christians must place God first.

          January 2, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
    • Alias

      Most christians are convinced that they are going to heaven along with their loved ones.
      This logic will not convince them.
      Of course, no logic really changes beliefs based on emotions and insecurities.

      January 2, 2014 at 11:12 am |
      • John D

        Thanks for letting me know what you think most Christians are convinced of. That was very helpful.

        January 2, 2014 at 11:20 am |
        • In Santa we trust

          Are you saying that the majority of christians are not convinced that they are going to heaven along with their loved ones? Why are they christians then? What is their purpose and goal?

          January 2, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • John D

          No, that is not what I'm saying. I can really only speak for myself. I'll let others worry about what they imagine the majority of Christians are and aren't convinced of.

          What is their purpose and goal? Probably very similar to yours.

          January 2, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • Live4Him

      So you agree that (if there is a heaven) you have no one to blame but yourself?

      January 2, 2014 at 11:43 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
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.