home
RSS
February 19th, 2014
02:36 PM ET

Funeral held for snake-handling pastor

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Christianity • Death • Faith • Pentecostal

soundoff (1,176 Responses)
  1. Dyslexic doG

    Last century, L Ron Hubbard wrote a book, as foolish as it is, making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence, and he has millions of followers.

    200 years ago, Joseph Smith wrote a book, as foolish as it is, making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence, and he has tens of millions of followers.

    A few thousand years ago, unnamed desert dwelling goat herders wrote a book, making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence, and they have hundreds of millions of followers.

    Do you see that the only thing that makes your christian religion more popular than any other of these obvious scams is the amount of time it has had for your deluded cult members to breed and indoctrinate their children.

    So have a good think about how preposterous scientology and mormonism sound to you, and know that christianity is just the same thing with a bigger head start.

    February 21, 2014 at 10:58 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Richard Dawkins wrote a book making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence that led to an atheist cult-like following of people who believed his theories as facts. They were even given a name "New Atheists". A lot of people, even atheists remark how similar they are to the religious.

      February 21, 2014 at 11:08 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        what a pitiful retort Dalahast. You can do better.

        Dawkins' book has more facts per page than the bible has in the entire book!

        February 21, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "The atheist spring that began just over a decade ago is over, thank God. Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies. He’s the Mary Whitehouse of our day."

          "...sceptical of all relics of Enlightenment optimism, including the atheist’s faith in reason...."

          "What distinguishes the newer atheist is his admission that non-believers can be just as immoral as believers. Rejecting religion is no sure path to virtue; it is more likely to lead to complacent self-regard, or ideological arrogance."

          http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

          February 21, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          oh the propaganda you read in your bubble!

          you must LOVE Kirk Cameron and his crocoduck. That proves it all, doesn't it?!

          what a joke!

          February 21, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No. You are wrong.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • doobzz

          No, DD, actually, he/she can't do better. His tactics consist of diversion, distraction, the assumption that all atheists slavishly follow "celebrity atheists" and a weird sort of "but he did it too" excuse. Never a direct answer.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No, Doobz, you are completely wrong.

          I'm fine with most atheists. Really. It is the religion-hating bigoted ones I have trouble tolerating.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
        • joey3467

          Yes all of his posts attempt to make one of the following points.

          1. I don't believe that
          2. Not all Christians believe that
          3. Atheists do that too.

          Repeat over and over again.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          So, are you saying I can see past the follies of broad generalizations and stereotypes made about atheists and Christians.

          Uh, thanks.

          1. When an atheist tries to tell me what I believe, that is usually not what I believe. It is their imagination.
          2. Not all Christians believe that: They don't.
          3. Atheists do that too.: They do. Sometimes we atheists/Christians are hypocritical. We do what we accuse others of doing.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "...sceptical of all relics of Enlightenment optimism, including the atheist’s faith in reason...."

          Dala,

          Please tell me a better, more reliable, way to discern fact from fiction than "reason"?

          You rail against "reason" as if it had religious origins that contradict your own and yet you would be hard pressed to show me that you don't trust "reason" except when it butts against your religious dogma.

          So please, please give me an example of a non-religious based belief you hold that is not based on reason.

          "What distinguishes the newer atheist is his admission that non-believers can be just as immoral as believers. Rejecting religion is no sure path to virtue; it is more likely to lead to complacent self-regard, or ideological arrogance."

          This is a canard you use to convince yourself that you are humble and we think we are superior. We think our world view is superior...but you think YOURS is superior too, you just dishonestly portray it otherwise.

          And really, is it more arrogant to reject basless claims.....or to think that the Creator of the Universe is so concerned with you that he sacrificed himeself for your benefit...and you have a personal relationship with him? Hmmmm...?

          February 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Cheese

          I use and trust in reason like everyone else. I depend on it. It is a survival skill. I don't rally against reason. I rally against people who self-describe themselves as reasonable, but don't actually demonstrate reason.

          Some are putting faith in their false construct of "reason".

          + "that the Creator of the Universe is so concerned with you that he sacrificed himeself for your benefit...and you have a personal relationship with him?"

          No.

          + "Hmmmm...?"

          ?

          If life were nothing but pure reason: it wouldn't be life. I can't prove life. But there it is. And it is unreasonable, illogical, imperfect and flawed. Just like you.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I rally against people who self-describe themselves as reasonable, but don't actually demonstrate reason."

          Dala,

          If you trust and value reason why do you sling the word around like a Right Wing talk show host uses the word "Commie"? You act like reason isn't something one should put their trust in...or at least there are times "reason" should be eschewed for some other way to discerne reality...though you never say what that would be or why it is wrong to have "faith" in "reason". And please use an example of an unreasonable position I have taken...because if you convince me I am being unreasonable on an issue I promise to change my view.

          Also, are you saying Jesus did not die for your sins?

          You like to deny you hold common CHristian beliefs...but you don't really like to explain why...or how your belief is different. What are you afraid of? The last time you denied my perception of your Christian belief you ended up admitting I did know what I was talking about and you 'had just never heard it put that way'.

          February 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          + why it is wrong to have "faith" in "reason"

          It is not wrong to have faith in reason. The "new atheist" view of what is "reason" is flawed, especially in regards to what Richard Dawkins demonstrated it to be.

          You seem to claim to have true access to reason. And I am just the product of brainwashing and delusion.

          + Also, are you saying Jesus did not die for your sins?

          No. And I didn't give the explanation you gave.

          February 21, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "The "new atheist" view of what is "reason" is flawed"

          And what view is that and why is it flawed?

          If Jesus dies for your sins you think the Creator of the Universe cares about you...my point stands.

          February 21, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Is there a "reason"able reason to believe that God is any more real than some other god?

          February 21, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "If life were nothing but pure reason: it wouldn't be life. I can't prove life. But there it is. And it is unreasonable, illogical, imperfect and flawed. Just like you."

          You can't prove life...why not?

          People, including everyone, are not completely logical and reasonable. But the universe does appear to be reasonable (i.e. everything we "know" about it has a reasonble, understandable explanation). But you seem to claim that somehow reason can't be used to discover and understand the universe...and I am still waiting for an actual example that can demonstate you are correct.

          February 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You misunderstand.

          I don't reject reason. But I don't think reason will reveal all the truths we need to know. So I stay open minded to matters of faith and spirituality.

          February 21, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "But I don't think reason will reveal all the truths we need to know."

          Pretending to know "truths" is dishonest, and harmful. And you have yet again failed to answer the question.

          February 21, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I don't reject reason."

          Yes you do, when it suits your belief. And that is arrogant. It is arrogant to pretend to know things you dont know.

          February 21, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          But how do you judge something as "truth" without using reason?

          I also remain open-minded to the existence of things yet undiscovered, but the time to actually start believing in them is after the evidence comes in, not before.

          February 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        "Richard Dawkins wrote a book making all sorts of outrageous and outlandish claims, backed up by zero evidence"

        Could you provide some examples?

        February 21, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • Dalahäst

          He describes and ridicules certain arguments for believing in God, without naming anyone who actually endorses those arguments.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Do you have examples? It may be difficult to name individuals who behave the way he says but he may be making valid general points.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • Dalahäst

          He misunderstood one of CS Lewis' argument for the deity of Jesus as an argument from Scripture for God's existence. That is not what it was.

          Lewis' argument already established reasonable belief in God. Dawkins failed to recognize that.

          It was misleading.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • joey3467

          Having read C.S. Lewis's arguments for the existence of god, I can honestly say I don't find them to be the least bit reasonable.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It would be nice if Dawkins would have disputed Lewis' rationalizations for God.

          Instead he disputed a different argument and falsely claimed it was a rationalization for God.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • joey3467

          Since I have never read a single thing by Dawkins I can't comment on that.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          One atheist said this:

          "The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious att.itudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they're terminally ill?)."

          February 21, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Augustine may have rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century, but millions of Christians embrace it to the extreme in 2014, and Dawkins likely focused on those Christians because they are the ones who deny the validity of any science that they see casting doubt on their view of biblical infallibility. These same Christians also tend to also see this life as just a place to wipe their feet before entering the real deal of eternity with the Lord. Not all Christians have so powerful a dislike for "the world", but those who most strongly criticize Dawkins generally do, I think.

          I use to be rather impressed with the thinking of CS Lewis until I read his admission that Christianity is not only full of myth, but that this was to be somehow expected because Christian myth was actually factual. Reading him now reminds me of some kind of Jedi trying to do a mind trick. I can almost envision him wiggling his fingers a little as he gives his apologetics. Great rhetoric, but ultimately without substance. All he really does is inspire people to want to believe in God, which isn't the same thing as actually proving it, now is it?

          February 21, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?)"

          Addressing specific theology would be useless because it would lead down a bottomless "rabbit hole". Christians can't agree on basic theology and would just do what you do, i.e. "I don't believe that" and them claim therefore his arguments don't apply. He addressed the issue of god broadly, which was absolutely necessary to deal with the subject.

          The bottom line is ALL religion claims they "know" things as fact that can't in any reasonable or logical way be demonstrated to be true...and many of the claims stand in direct oppostion to what can be demonstated. Religion has never been an even remotely reliable way of understanding realty. If it was, religious people would have at least a basic uniform belief...religious theology is nothing but conjecture and speculation...why should any of it be trusted?

          February 21, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "One atheist said this"

          Well that is a reliable piece of information...it must be true

          February 21, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbvDYyoAv9k&w=640&h=360]

          February 21, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • hotairace

          Re: "One atheist said. . ." people might want to read http://www.edge.org/discourse/dennett_orr.html read more about H. Allen Orr and his personal credibility.

          February 21, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • hotairace

          Dalahast, do you agree with his assessment of members of the National Science Academy and their religious beliefs, or are you once again cherry picking?

          February 21, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "The American National Academy of Sciences has written that 'the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith,' a view officially endorsed by many religious denominations globally."

          I agree.

          February 21, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • hotairace

          “I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.”

          ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

          Go find the video in which he made this statement and then see if you agree with his views on religion.

          February 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is pretty awesome that 85% are not Christians yet publicly state they realize Christianity doesn't oppose science in regards to evolution.

          February 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
        • hotairace

          Check out YouTube for "Tyson de on religious people" or "Tyson de debunks intelligent design" – not actual video names but enough words to find them and others easily.

          February 21, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've seen the ID one. I'll look for the other. Thanks.

          February 21, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          I am not accusing you of rejecting science, I am acussing you of claiming to know things you don't know. Miracles, god,...anything unexplained that you then explain by making up answers or accepting someone elses made up answers.

          February 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          If enough people pressed them, these same scientists would have to concede that science doesn't oppose any other religion either. Nor can it oppose the belief in actual magic, ghosts, wish-granting genies, or anything else that is based on faith in something supernatural.

          The more important point is that science doesn't support any of those things either.

          Plenty of scientists believe in these things and stuff you'd likely find even more whacky, but that's personal belief, not something that they can would defend professionally. As it is, their opinion on God being real is about as valuable as their opinion on art, or hockey.

          Isn't it reasonable to assume that any god that can affect the natural world, like God supposedly does, would be detectable in some way?

          February 22, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
      • SeaVik

        I'm not sure which of his books you're referring to, but you should try reading The God Delusion. That book is filled with many scientifically supported, logical conclusions that are pretty much impossible to dispute.

        February 21, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I hope you are kidding. The God Delusion was a philosophy book written by a scientist.

          If you are joking, that is hilarious. If you are not. Uh, no.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • SeaVik

          I'm not kidding in the least. I've read the book twice and found myself saying, "Exactly, how can anyone not see how clear this is?" on just about every page. I truly don't understand how anyone could read that book and still be in completely denial about how absurd religion is afterwards.

          If there's something about it that you find illogical or untrue, feel free to provide an example.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "That book is filled with many scientifically supported, logical conclusions that are pretty much impossible to dispute."

          No. It is a philosophy book. Not a science book. And it is not completely logical. It is possible to dispute it.

          http://theatheistconservative.com/review-god-delusion/

          That was written by an atheist.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
        • SeaVik

          You can put "no" in bold, but that doesn't make your position correct. Like I said, I don't know how anyone can disagree with that book and claim to be objective. It's all so black and white with almost no opinion involved.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • hotairace

          There is much more actual evidence to support The God Delusion than there is for The Babble. In fact, there is no actual (objective, factual, verifiable, independent) for any supernatural claim in The Babble. Dawkins wins "a whole bunch" to nil.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • SeaVik

          I took a quick look at the link. The guy basically disagrees with Dawkins process, but not his conclusions. The guy also claims to know with 100% certainty that there is no god, which most atheists, including Dawkins, do not.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No kidding. I know what an atheist is. That is why I picked that article for you.

          It is an atheist disputing "The God Delusion". And he does a good job.

          It demonstrates that it is possible to dispute that philosophy book.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • SeaVik

          It won't magically become a philosophy book no matter how many times you say that. This isn't the Wizard of Oz.

          1) The guy doesn't dispute the findings of The God Delusion. His critique is generally a political one. The guy is an extreme conservative and an atheist and his critique is about his politics, not the science or logic of the book.

          2) Don't you see the irony of providing an argument from someone who is more extreme on the atheistic scale than I am? Even more extreme than Dawkins? You're suggesting that the guy who knows there is no god is a credible source of critique for the guy who almost definitely knows there is no god...to support your side, which believes there is a god.

          3) Speaking of irony, my mom gave me a copy of The God Delusion for Christmas many years ago.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "The worst feature of Dawkins' book is its failure to get grips with the variety of religious belief. Dawkins' real enemy is fundamentalism, but he attacks religion indiscriminately. ... He is unable to grasp that many moderate believes dislike fundamentalists of all religions as much as he does. ... I am afraid that The God Delusion is a deeply flawed book that does not to approach Dawkins' usual standards, and suspect that he got carried away by the sheer enjoyment of writing it. "
          – E. Brian Davies, a distinguished British mathematician (and hardly a religious believer himself)

          "The God Delusion is a work of theater rather than scholarship - a fierce, rhetorical assault on religion and passionate plea for it to be banished to the lunatic fringes of society, where it can do no harm. ... Its dismissive atti.tude to religion will doubtless win plaudits from those who heartily dislike religion.

          Yet others have been more cautious. Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotypes, vastly oversimplified binary oppositions (science is good; religion is bad), straw men and hostility towards religion. Might The God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer? "
          -Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath

          http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/dawkins.php

          "Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins's work, I'm afraid that I'm among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he's actually more an amateur. I don't pretend to know whether there's more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins's general conclusion is right. But his book makes a far from convincing case. "

          February 21, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • SeaVik

          None of those quotes disput the logic, science or conclusions of the book. They don't like his style – that's fine, but it's still all true and they don't disagree.

          Regardless, there are quotes from people on every side of every issue. Why don't you explain what you think is incorrect in the book. Just pick one conclusion that you think is illogical or just a philosophy.

          February 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Actually those quotes do question his logic. And it is not a science book. If a college course offered a study of the book, it would be from the philosophy department.

          February 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Dalahast, What is illogical about not believing in something for which there is no evidence? You may not like his approach; I don't like what the Arizona Senate has just passed and that is the kind of encroachment that believers claim the right to do because theirs is the" one true god".

          February 21, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
      • dandintac

        Dalahast,

        What claim did Dawkins make that has no evidence? I'm not fan of Dawkins, but that's mainly because of his tone and style. Please be specific.

        February 21, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Did you see my comment about his claims on CS Lewis?

          February 21, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
  2. Heaven Sent

    Jesus left us a gift, the Holy Bible. Read it and accept God into your heart. My 12-year-old daughter had to quit her job because she ran out of toothpaste. It is time for you to start you walk with Jesus in the hot sand.

    Amen.

    February 21, 2014 at 10:24 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      shame about the toothpaste.

      nemA

      February 21, 2014 at 10:43 am |
  3. Heaven Sent

    Christians come on these articles to teach atheists how to get to heaven. Too bad for the atheists they won’t listen to the Truth of Jesus. My camel-toe missed he podium my 4 tenths of a second. Jump in the passenger seat and ride to paradise or burn in hell.

    Amen.

    February 21, 2014 at 10:21 am |
    • kudlak

      Get back under your bridge.

      February 21, 2014 at 10:24 am |
      • derado8

        Way to attack that effigy and show it who is boss.

        February 21, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      sometimes those tenths of a second really count.

      nemA

      February 21, 2014 at 10:44 am |
  4. Doc Vestibule

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCImZouH8c&w=640&h=360]

    February 21, 2014 at 9:45 am |
  5. joeyy1

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w&w=640&h=360]
    .

    February 21, 2014 at 9:39 am |
    • Doris

      Goodness – please buy some extra chords and throw in a few tempo changes.

      February 21, 2014 at 9:42 am |
  6. Heaven Sent

    You atheists think about a dog barking at shadows and climb a tree to get a better view. Clean up after your dog and stand on Jesus' ground. My camel-toe is home to a litter of bunnies that came in through the broken dryer vent. Walk with Jesus down the pathway to the mall of heaven and shop in God's store.

    Amen.

    February 21, 2014 at 9:36 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      yes, clean up after me.

      nemA

      February 21, 2014 at 10:45 am |
  7. CJ

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z82wYt53LGI&w=640&h=360]

    February 21, 2014 at 9:16 am |
    • Doris

      Are you supposed to stand after being bitten by a snake? I'm not sure. Now for spiders – well one wiki page one tradition:

      'The "magico-religious" tarantella is a solo dance performed supposedly to cure through perspiration the delirium and contortions attributed to the bite of a spider at harvest (summer) time.'

      February 21, 2014 at 9:41 am |
  8. Ungodly Discipline

    Where is PETA? Who is caring for the snakes?

    February 21, 2014 at 9:13 am |
    • theophileo

      Actually they're delicious! Treat them like you would a flounder fillet. A little breading and fried. Mmmmmmm....

      February 21, 2014 at 9:19 am |
      • Doris

        You know that actually sounds pretty good. I'll have to read up on what spIces would go good with that. And if I go to the store, I'll pick up some fava beans and a nice chianti to go with..

        February 21, 2014 at 11:34 am |
    • Heaven Sent

      PETA did not see the dead ones because they were under the stacks of tabloids. Actually, they didn't stay long. Something about the odor. My 12-year-old daughter takes her boyfriends to the couch n the backyard. Jesus helps us make a path to the kitchen.

      Amen.

      February 21, 2014 at 9:41 am |
    • kudlak

      I don't know, is PETA interested in protecting animals that aren't cute and good for fund-raising?

      February 21, 2014 at 10:01 am |
      • lunchbreaker

        I can just picture some poor little snakes set to a sad Sarah Mclachlan song.

        February 21, 2014 at 10:33 am |
      • kudlak

        They still use pictures of white coat harp seals to raise money even though seals that young haven't been hunted for about 30 years. They're dishonest. That's why I would never support them.

        February 22, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
  9. Alias

    The problem here is the bible.
    No matter what christians claim, there is no correct way to interpret the book.

    How Old Was Ahaziah When He Began to Reign?

    2 Kings 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
    2 Chronicles 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.

    February 20, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
    • Alias

      (Matt 1:1-16)
      A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham....
      6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
      7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah....
      16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
      (Luke 3:23-38)
      Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph....
      31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse....
      38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

      February 20, 2014 at 11:31 pm |
      • derado8

        I have no idea what you just said in that post. I tried to read it five times.

        February 21, 2014 at 2:26 am |
      • Robert Brown

        Alias,
        There are some scholars who say the genealogy in Matthew is for Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus and the genealogy in Luke is for Mary.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

        February 21, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • kermit4jc

          agreed..if one reads the context..Matthew paints Jesus as Kings and God..while Luke paints Jesus as man..thru his biological lineage (Mary) for first of all..remember..Jesus has TWO parents..a father and mother..and only Mary was biological parent, being that Jesus was born of virgin...by law then Jospeh was father..not biologically..I mean come one folks..sounds almost as if I tld yo I had two lineages..youd claim there was a mistake....I have a bio mother and a bio father

          February 21, 2014 at 10:27 am |
        • Sungrazer

          I seem to remember reading a counterpoint that no one ever did maternal genealogies. And another counterpoint about it making no sense to do a genealogy for Joseph if he wasn't Jesus' biologial father. Among other problems.

          “He had counted fourteen names from Abraham to David and thought he counted fourteen from Jechoniah to Jesus, and decided that this coincidence of numbers must indicate a prophetic pattern. But in fact he found not fourteen names from David to Jechoniah, but eighteen; so Matthew took the simple expedient of changing Joram into the father of Azariah (though he was, in fact, the great-great grandfather) and Josiah into the father of Jechoniah (though he was, in fact, his grandfather). But the pattern was illusory in the first place, and Matthew could have spared his trouble had he more carefully counted the names in the third group when proposing the pattern; for it contains not fourteen names but only thirteen”

          February 21, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • Doris

      Someone said there is a Nutsadamus quatrain that has a factor you're supposed to use between those two books... 🙄

      February 20, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
    • workingcopy12

      'Have you done any analysis of why this apparent discrepancy exists? Or is this more likely another cut and paste job from one of the laughable bible verse conflict web sites? More importantly, do you think that Ahaziah's age has anything to do with how God wants us to live our lives and His plan for salvation?

      February 21, 2014 at 7:10 am |
      • Alias

        I think that showing the bible is flawed raises questions about if we should use it at all.

        February 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
    • theophileo

      There is a proper way to read the Bible, and it is with proper hermeneutics through good textual criticism. The text you quoted was from the KJV which is not the best translation available today. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

      It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only the way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God.

      February 21, 2014 at 7:35 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        While the differences in scripture listed above may have little significance to most Christians, pointing them out riles up the literalists. Fundamentalism is predicated on taking every word in Bible as inerrant, perfect, literal "Truth", which it very obviously is not. There is an ever so slim chance that highlighting such things might possibly make a fundamentalist take another look at their faith.
        Though I may not be a believer, the idea that salvation comes only through blind acceptance of dogma seems extra absurd to me. Believing that Genesis is actual, factual history should hardly be a requirement for God's grace.

        "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
        – Thomas Jefferson

        February 21, 2014 at 8:12 am |
        • theophileo

          "salvation comes only through blind acceptance of dogma"
          --------–
          Salvation comes through a desire to do the will of God. Faith in God is anything but blind.

          February 21, 2014 at 8:19 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          That isn't true in all cases.
          What good is unexamined faith?

          February 21, 2014 at 8:37 am |
        • theophileo

          "What good is unexamined faith?"
          ----------
          No good at all! That's why our faith must be examined daily. That was the cry of the reformers "Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei" that is, "The church Reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God."

          I've actually been thinking about getting a tattoo, it'll say "Semper Reformanda!" 🙂

          February 21, 2014 at 8:43 am |
        • Doris

          I'm closing my eyes just a bit to see if some blind faith will woks its way into these old bones.

          Oh, excuse me, I think I threw up a little in my mouth.
          OK, I'm OK now. Good morning.

          February 21, 2014 at 9:03 am |
        • Doris

          Goodness – *work* it's way. I didn't mean like a stir-fry.

          February 21, 2014 at 9:04 am |
        • Doris

          [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN1J5sMv28Q&w=640&h=360]

          February 21, 2014 at 9:25 am |
      • kudlak

        theophileo
        There seems to be a number of "proper" ways to read the Bible, depending on which group of Christians you ask and what they're attempting to have the Bible say in support of their beliefs. Many of them involve some very "creative" interpretations of words and cultural contexts. There is no definitive way to read the Bible, it seems. You may think that there is, but that is only your opinion. Can you honestly say that modern people can get the same understanding out of what was written for people living in a culture so different from ours?

        February 21, 2014 at 10:23 am |
    • Robert Brown

      Alias,
      The kingdom was divided between Judah and Israel for a long time. There was a King named Ahaziah that reigned in Israel for a period of time and another Ahaziah that reigned in Judah for different period of time. Here is a chart that puts it in perspective.

      http://www.thebookwurm.com/kingchrt.htm

      February 21, 2014 at 10:20 am |
  10. Vic

    Eulogy:

    Pastor Jamie Coots was a faithful man, he believed in God; however, he tempted the Lord God, and that's what happened.

    Well, all I can say is that he is saved, and God bless his soul.

    Previously:
    https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/19/funeral-held-for-snake-handling-pastor/comment-page-1/#comment-2949097

    February 20, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
    • Madtown

      all I can say is that he is saved
      ---
      How do you know?

      February 20, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
      • Vic

        Oh, we believe a person is saved through Faith/Belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

        February 20, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • hotairace

          So you are pretending to know things you do not. Interesting . . .

          February 20, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
        • sam stone

          saved from what? the temper tantrum of his vindictive pr1ck god?

          February 21, 2014 at 7:27 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Agaun showing MUCH ignorance of the Bible..God is a HOLY and JUST God cause that is His very nature..its not a temper tantrum or such..you are very ignorant of what the Bible says...and I would almost guess you think anyone who rebukes and punishes another for consequences is a p r I c k too

          February 21, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • hotairace

          Cool. Faith, pretending to know things you do not, provides salvation (whatever that is) by an alleged but never proven imaginary buddy. Seems like a lot of assumptions – or mentall illness.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:01 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          hotair: In kermit's case I'd say mental illness. He certainly has been acting like an angry vicious delusional person when he says he hears god speak to him and then says stuff like "IM sick of you doing this." People who get so defensive of their imaginary friends probably are not the safest to be running free in society.

          kermie: If you don't like what people here have to say, you are not being forced to read it. We don't care if you're getting sick of it or don't agree...this is a public blog and regardless of how offended you may get we will continue to speak. Maybe FAUX news would be a better place to find people of the same delusional mindset you have.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • Robert Brown

          Hotair,
          Salvation is being saved from the consequence of sin, being born again, spiritually, and being made a child of God.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • hotairace

          Fine. Now all you have to do is provide just a smidgin of evidence for any of that. I suggest you start with some evidence for your god. No god means The Babble is crap means your beliefs are false at least and probably delusions if not mental illness.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:47 am |
        • sam stone

          Sin is a man made concept that you have bought into hook, line and sinker, Robert

          How do you like spending life on your knees?

          February 21, 2014 at 10:50 am |
    • sam stone

      he was a foolish man who played with a venomous snake and paid for it with his life

      February 20, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
    • bootyfunk

      there is no heaven;
      there is no hell.
      he cut short the only years he had.
      it's hard to feel sorry for someone as foolish as this guy,
      but he was severely brainwashed.
      he is an example of the consequences of taking religion too seriously.
      i feel bad for his family he left behind.
      and i feel bad for the snakes he'd tortured.

      February 20, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
      • Vic

        Snake handling is extremely unorthodox.

        February 20, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • rogerthat2014

          Yet performing the morbid and grotesque ritual in which you simulate eating a zombie, is completely orthodox and considered sane.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:11 am |
      • Vic

        I believe it is a total misinterpretation.

        February 20, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
      • theophileo

        "there is no heaven;
        there is no hell."
        ---------–
        Prove it.

        February 21, 2014 at 7:37 am |
        • sam stone

          ,prove that there is

          February 21, 2014 at 7:39 am |
        • theophileo

          Sure, no problem.
          Law of Causality + Argument from Contingency = Logical necessity of a Creator God.
          There, that was easy. 🙂

          February 21, 2014 at 7:45 am |
        • sam stone

          sure, it's easy if like tortured logic. the challenge was to prove a heaven or hell, not to prove a creator. how does a creator prove heaven or hell?

          February 21, 2014 at 7:50 am |
        • redzoa

          Argument from Contingency is pure special pleading via definitional fiat, i.e. the preferred "first cause" is excused from the underlying premise (Why? Because!). Why people find this to be a convincing argument I just can't understand; however, given the non sequitur of the conclusion "Logical necessity for a Creator God," it appears theists are prone to embrace anything and everything so long as it appears to justify their vain hopes of escaping mortality.

          February 21, 2014 at 7:57 am |
        • sam stone

          Come on, Larry, got that answer, or are you just happy congratulating yourself over your pompous blather?

          February 21, 2014 at 8:14 am |
        • theophileo

          (I've got a lot of work to do today so I may not be on much)

          "the preferred "first cause" is excused from the underlying premise"
          ---------
          No, the first cause that is itself uncaused is dictated by logic. Infinitely long causal chains do not exist since a causal chain is defined as having a first cause. Since a causal chain exists that contains all elements withing the physical universe, then logic demands that there exists something outside of physical reality to be its first cause.

          February 21, 2014 at 8:23 am |
        • redzoa

          "No, the first cause that is itself uncaused is dictated by logic. Infinitely long causal chains do not exist since a causal chain is defined as having a first cause."

          To my knowledge, a causal chain simply means each event is caused by that which came before. It does not, by definition or logic, require a precise "beginning" or "first" and thereby does not, in itself, preclude an infinite chain. Before you reference Hilbert's Hotel, I'd ask you to provide the precise number of events that preclude the possibility of a prior event? I would also note that your limiting a causal chain "by definition" to require a "first" is precisely the type of argument by definitional fiat I was referencing and is no different than simply jumping to the other side to define a preferred cause as "the uncaused first."

          February 21, 2014 at 8:45 am |
        • theophileo

          "It does not, by definition or logic, require a precise "beginning" or "first" and thereby does not, in itself, preclude an infinite chain"
          -----------–
          Logically, a causal chain requires a first cause – otherwise, how would you explain the existence of the causal chain in the first place?

          OK, let's look at it like this. We have 100 dominoes lined up in a circle, you knock over the first one, and it knocks over another, and so on until they all fall. A causal chain. It cannot be infinitely long since a fallen dominoe cannot "knock over" another fallen dominoe.

          February 21, 2014 at 8:57 am |
        • Doris

          So the universe is like a series of dominoes, kind of like those obelisks in the 2010 film? It never occurred to me until now that with some divine energy, maybe they could be knocked over even though they may not be right next to each other.

          February 21, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • theophileo

          "So the universe is like a series of dominoes"
          ---------
          Only in the sense that all physical ent.ities are under the law of causality.

          February 21, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • theophileo

          The question is, how can an infinite series of causes within a causal chain explain the existence of the causal chain in the first place? Is that not a pradox?

          February 21, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • sam stone

          come on, larry, still waiting on that answer. how does a creator prove a heaven or hell? if you don't know, just admit as much. no shame in saying so.

          February 21, 2014 at 9:45 am |
        • Doris

          Yes it seems like there is always a paradox with that one no matter your position.

          February 21, 2014 at 9:46 am |
        • theophileo

          come on, larry, still waiting on that answer. how does a creator prove a heaven or hell? if you don't know, just admit as much. no shame in saying so
          --------
          Logical deduction that must begin with the existence of God. If someone is not willing to even entertain the notion that God exists, then there is no point in attempting to argue for the existence of heaven and hell. One must first concede the existence of the supernatural – that is, things outside the laws and states of being that govern the physical universe.

          Can you explain the question that I posed then? How can an infinite series of causes within a causal chain explain the existence of the causal chain in the first place?

          Because if it cannot, then one must be led to conclude that the causal chain that is our physical universe had to have a first cause.

          February 21, 2014 at 9:53 am |
        • Alias

          "theophiloe-"Logical deduction that must begin with the existence of God.
          I dissagree. You cannot logically prove god exists by sterting with te assumption that he does.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • theophileo

          "You cannot logically prove god exists by sterting with te assumption that he does."
          ---------
          That's why I established that a Creator God is a logical necessity by laying out the case from causality and contingency.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • sam stone

          "Logical deduction that must begin with the existence of God."

          Nonsense.

          For the sake of argument. Let's say that there is a possibility of a creator. How does that PROVE a heaven or a hell?

          February 21, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • Doris

          I'm hungry for knowledge...and other things. If I order two dominoes pizzas today, I will specify that they are to be delivered in the already-fallen-down, post BB state.

          On second thought, I don't think even that will make them satisfactory. I'll just pull some frozen ones out of the freezer and spruce them up with my own toppings.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • theophileo

          "For the sake of argument. Let's say that there is a possibility of a creator. How does that PROVE a heaven or a hell?"
          ---------
          If we as.sume that God is real, then we've got to question "which God?" This process is a bit lengthy to post here, but suffice it to say, it's done using logic and reasoning. Once you've gotten that far, it leads you to reading the Bible, and what God chose to reveal to us. Within that are heaven and hell. You see why it's first necessary to concede that God exists though? Without that, you'd never be willing to search for truth among all the mere truth claims that exist in the world today.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:18 am |
        • Doris

          I often think of a god not as the Abrahamic type, but as some force that naturally might only be involved in creation – kickstarting each universe, then disappearing beyond the boundary of the current project to go start the next one. That's obviously much more far-fetched than Deism, but an important similarity is that this "force" is never in the present very long – maybe not even at all, in the universe that it just created.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • theophileo

          Doris,
          At least you're willing to concede the existence of something outside our physical universe... That's the hard part. The next step is the search for truth in a world of competing truth claims.

          If truth exists, then it is outside of ourselves, becuase two competing ideas of truth cannot both be true. I may believe we're both on a train to Chicago, and you may believe it's headed to San Diego – obviously we cannot both be right. If truth exists, you owe it to yourself to find it.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:41 am |
        • Doris

          I'm not really conceding the existence of a greater intelligent force outside of ourselves that played a role in our creation, but I certainly think that's a possibility. With what little we know still about the universe and its internals, I think there must be lots of good possibilities not yet explored.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • sam stone

          "we as.sume that God is real..."

          where did you get that? i said, for sake of argument, assume there is a possibility of a creator. you changed it to the assumption of a God. i did not say that. is that your schtick? putting words into people's mouths?

          "it's done using logic and reasoning"

          i have seen your logic and reasoning and am not impressed.

          "Once you've gotten that far, it leads you to reading the Bible, and what God chose to reveal to us"

          So, your possibility of a creator suddenly morphs not only into a God, but the God of the bible.

          Talk about a leap of logic

          "Within that are heaven and hell"

          Okay, so a book you attribute to "God" talks about heaven or hell, and you feel that this is proof?

          Where's that logic again?

          "You see why it's first necessary to concede that God exists though?"

          Only if you are looking to support a pre-existing belief

          "Without that, you'd never be willing to search for truth among all the mere truth claims that exist in the world today."

          And yours is one of the "mere truth claims"

          Your logic is faulty

          February 21, 2014 at 10:47 am |
        • hotairace

          Contemplating one, a few or all of an infinite number of possibilities is not conceding anything. Seizing on one to the exclusion of all others, especially without a single bit of actual evidence, is just plain stupid, or worse.

          February 21, 2014 at 10:53 am |
        • theophileo

          Sam,
          If a CREATOR exists, then he MUST be God... For what else could create the physical universe from nothing?
          If that Creator exists, and He is God, has He chosen to speak to us?
          Amongst all the competing truth claims, which is right?
          When you've found the right one, and we as.sume there IS a right one, because a Creator God would have no reason to send men competing ideas about Himself, what does that book say about our purpose for existing?

          When you concede a Creator exists, then He must be God, if that God chose to communicate with us, He wouldn't send conflicting information, and in that information that we concede to be reliable, and not conflicting, we read about heavn and hell. Why would He lie?

          The reasoning goes something like that I suppose.

          As I said to Doris, "If truth exists, you owe it to yourself to find out what that is..." You claim that the Bible is just one of those mere truth claims... What leads you to that conclusion? Have you studied all of the world's religions and read their books? Have you been years in doctrinal studies and comparative theology?

          February 21, 2014 at 10:56 am |
        • Doris

          theo: "When you concede a Creator exists, then He must be God, if that God chose to communicate with us, He wouldn't send conflicting information, and in that information that we concede to be reliable, and not conflicting, we read about heavn and hell. Why would He lie? "

          If a creator exists, he must be the Abrahamic God? I'm certainly not convinced of that based on any evidence put to me so far.

          If the Abrahmic God exsts, how do we know what his ethics are? Who does he answer to? How do we know he wouldn't lie and try to confuse all of us?

          (First of all, I'm not convinced something is trying to communicate to us...)

          February 21, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • sam stone

          "If a CREATOR exists, then he MUST be God"

          Why?

          Why do you discount the possibility that a creator created and walked away?

          Why do you discount the possibility that how people see god is largely cultural?

          February 21, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • sam stone

          "if that God chose to communicate with us, He wouldn't send conflicting information"

          So, of the 7 billion people on the earth, The Word of God (TM) has gotten through to 2 billion or so. And, among those 2 billion, there are some 41,000 different denominations, all claiming to have The Truth. If an omnipotent, omniscient god exists, would he not have done a better job at getting his word out?

          February 21, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • kermit4jc

          If that God chose to communicate with us, he wouldn't send conflicting information" See here we go..being arrogant and blaming someone else...instead of oneself..the conflicting info arises from humans who don't study the BIble..but merely read it (as I seen reports from atheists in here..no one has said they actually studied it...they say they read it) Studying is vvery important....because in studying..one goes in depth....they go find books on the subject of Jewish culture..because the BIble does not contain every single piece of info about the culture and language. From what I seen in here of skeptics...it seems they haveonly done cursory reading andno indepth study of thissubject

          February 21, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • sam stone

          "if that God chose to communicate with us, He wouldn't send conflicting information"

          You do realize, Kermy, that it was another christian who said that....

          Speaking of arrogant, what of those who purport to know the mind of god?

          February 21, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          WHO frigging said ANYTHING about knowing the mIND of God???

          February 21, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • sam stone

          pretty much anyone who is posting about what god likes or dislikes, kermy

          now, go home boy, and get your fvcking shinebox

          February 21, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          whatsa matter? no logical response to my posts? ran out of ideas?

          February 21, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • redzoa

          "The question is, how can an infinite series of causes within a causal chain explain the existence of the causal chain in the first place? Is that not a pradox?"

          There are a number of definitions of "paradox," but I take your use to mean "logically unsatisfying." Within the chain, one might find explanation for latter events in earlier events, but why must an infinite series need to explain its existence? You would certainly reject this requirement to explain existence if it were directed to your preferred deity and would likely just declare, "it always existed." Perhaps too, the infinite series just paradoxically always existed. That you find this unsatisfying doesn't change the possibility and in light of the complete absence of evidence for your preferred alternative (again, which is simply special pleading via definitional fiat), at best it's a draw. Nonetheless, and despite your lack of satisfaction with an infinite series, I'd ask you to point to some number of events which necessarily precludes a preceding event.

          February 21, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • sam stone

          it is a logical response to your post, shinebox

          February 22, 2014 at 5:38 am |
    • kudlak

      Vic
      Isn't it fair to say that, when it comes to prayer, anyone who places more emphasis on it than practical efforts to help themselves is also "tempting the Lord" and deserve the failure that so often follows?

      February 21, 2014 at 10:29 am |
    • joey3467

      According to the Bible if he had faith he wouldn't have died so I consider the fact that he did die proof that he is going to hell.

      February 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  11. Bob

    fred, according to your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, your mass-murdering, vengeful ass hole of a "god" is quite adept at causing pain. And your whole Jesus-sacrifice spiel is complete nonsense. How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

    Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

    Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
    Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

    February 20, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • workingcopy12

      Bob...I never thought about it like that. OMG your right. I give up all of my faith. Thank you. Your a God-send ;).

      February 20, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Always trust the hostile and irrationally angry know-it-all guy.

        February 20, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
        • bootyfunk

          he does sound hostile,
          but he's making perfect sense.

          if god is all-powerful, he could have saved humanity without sacrificing his only son. which means for some demented reason, he wanted to. and why would all humanity need to be saved? people who haven't been born yet cannot have done anything wrong - pretty basic logic. unless god made us flawed...?

          though you may not like them, he raised good questions.

          February 20, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          God did make us flawed. He said so. But he also said that is "OK".

          February 20, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
        • sam stone

          so, god made us flawed and he is judging us for being flawed?

          sounds like he is the one who should apologize

          February 21, 2014 at 8:20 am |
    • kermit4jc

      YOU are sadly ignorant of this God...yes..He is omnipotent..but there is MORE to Him than that..He is a HOLY and JUST God..if you merely want forgiveness without judgment..you might as well kiss God goodbye..for He cannot change..He is Just..not cause he FEELS like it but because that is His very nature...you want to deny justice? go for it...then YOUD bemaking a god to YOUR liking

      February 21, 2014 at 1:48 am |
      • tallulah131

        God is whatever you want him to be because god exists only in your head.

        February 21, 2014 at 2:04 am |
        • kermit4jc

          wow what an ignoramus statement..I didn't wish Him to be this way you fool..stop making assumptions about other people

          February 21, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • otoh2

          kermit,

          The word "ignoramus" is a noun.

          It means:
          : an utterly ignorant person : a dunce

          It is not used as an adjective. You would not say, "What a dunce statement".

          Frankly, your presentations here make a very poor showing for your cause.

          February 21, 2014 at 3:02 am |
        • kermit4jc

          My statement stands..you are ignorant..you make ignorant statements...you don't know me..you WANT me to want God to be this way..right?

          February 21, 2014 at 3:09 am |
        • sam stone

          you don't know us either, kermy

          February 21, 2014 at 8:22 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Again very silly and childish to claim we are this way cause we want it..as you say.....you are out of touch with reality of the way some of us think..you assume too much..get facts about us before you make such ignorant remarks

          February 21, 2014 at 10:00 am |
  12. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    "All we are is just a... another brick in the wall."

    February 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
  13. Dyslexic doG

    In another century or so the world will look at christianity like we now look at thor and odin in asgard ... and will laugh at the written record of christians in this forum and wonder how adults could believe such infantile foolishness. Keep writing your legacies folks. It'll get laughs someday.

    February 20, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • hotairace

      If believers are lucky they will be put in the same class as astrologists, which will allow them to continue to provide entertainment and make a couple bucks off the gullible and easily amused.

      February 20, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      WHat difference does that make? we get laughs today...so it will be nothing new.

      February 20, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
    • theophileo

      Maybe... But when we do get to that point, it will only last for 7 years.

      February 20, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
      • Alias

        Wow. Never heard THAT before.
        THE END IS NEAR! THE END IS NEAR! REPRNT NOW!

        How many more centuries will have to pass before christians finally accept jesus was wrong?

        February 20, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • sam stone

          "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING" – Chicken Little

          "REPENT FOR YOUR SINS BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!" – Christian Mantra

          "SALE! ONE DAY ONLY!" – TV Ad

          Notice the similarity

          February 20, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
        • workingcopy12

          Yes Sam, I notice the similarity–all the statements are in ALL CAPS.

          February 21, 2014 at 7:07 am |
        • theophileo

          "jesus was wrong?"
          -----------
          Prove it.

          February 21, 2014 at 7:38 am |
        • Alias

          If jesus was right the second coming would have happened about 2,000 years ago.

          February 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          NOT so..Jesus did not predict it would have happened back then

          February 21, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
  14. Dyslexic doG

    Ahhh religion. You can make it anything you want it to be. It's a license to imagine up your magical happy world and then tell others that it's what god wants.

    what a giggle!

    February 20, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
  15. colin31714

    One has to love the Orwellian doublespeak.

    A snake bites them and they live – praise God, it's a miracle according to Mark's Gospel.

    A snake bites them and they die – it's God's will.

    In other words, every possible factual outcome will be read as an affirmation of their pre-existing belief. It's true, you just can't fix stupid.

    February 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • believerfred

      On the flip side Hawking and those opposed to a personal God are still suffering the death resulting from the bite of the serpent in the garden long ago.

      February 20, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • hotairace

        And the myths and delusions continue as if they are fact. . .

        February 20, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • believerfred

          Very few scientific facts from 500 years ago are accepted scientific fact today. Facts are subject to scientific consensus whereas the truth of God has not changed ..............ever. Now, who is the one standing on shifting sand?

          February 20, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • hotairace

          Science and knowledge are improved upon by design – you look very stupid attempting to portray the scientific method as a negative.

          And what truth of which god are you chattering about? There is no evidence for any god, so no truth of any god.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • believerfred

          Science has its place and I note that the Jewish population has turned out a great many top scientists so we really cannot conclude stupidity is linked to God or the belief / disbelief in God.
          Most of the simply truths of God have been picked up over the generations and even incorporated into even our most liberal of relative morality. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself then you cannot go wrong. Jesus said I am way and the truth so look at his example if you need clarity.

          Which God? There is only God so don't the detail of journey you will take to find that unity. Begin by simply asking God to help you find the way Jesus was speaking about. I say Jesus because I have not found any other better representation of pure love. This was a selfless love that sought only to save, only to give and only to bring unity.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • joey3467

          No you can't link stupidity and a believe in god, but you can link stupidity and belief in a literal reading of the entire bible.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          "There is only God."

          this get me every time, how could you believe in one god and not the others that.s like saying their is only one star in the sky which is even funnier because stars are gods. just who am i praying to every morning if Amaterasu is not a god? (atheist don't answer) the devil? isn't this devil you believe in a god? or do you believe your god and the devil are one?

          monotheism is ridicules "my god real your god is not" their is only two reasonable answers here
          either their is no gods or there are gods even your bible says no gods before me. Yahweh admits the assistance of other god you don't. you monotheist are no different then atheist.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          You apparently don't read MUCH of the BIble. Yahweh says there are existence of FALSE gods..ones that don't exist...try again

          February 21, 2014 at 1:50 am |
        • believerfred

          thesamyaza
          If God is eternal and perfect without exception then there can be only one God. Any other that was eternal and perfect without exception would be indistinguishable and given the nature of omnipresence would be one in the same. Any other god would be less than and thus not God.
          As to Amaterasu she was washed out of the left eye of Izanagi all of which is an extension of the naturalism of man. Please compare to the attributes of God and note that God is not of worldly substance and does not have a confined form. I suggest you ask your sun god for an explanation and help when addressing God.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • believerfred

          joey3467
          "you can link stupidity and belief in a literal reading of the entire bible."
          =>Jesus even said he speaks in parables so that only those intended to hear can hear the true things of the kingdom. In the Old Testament the main ritual of blood sacrifice of the perfect lamb was but a shadow of atonement and eternal life in Christ. This is well known yet it is the non believer who insists he or she knows more than the writer and the then present audience which the text most often addressed.
          =>You may want to see if any believer takes all the parts of the Bible literal. At best history, parables, time/culture specific events and allegory must be understood for what they are.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • Fallacy Spotting 101

          Recent posts by 'believerfred' contain instances of the Secret Decoder Ring fallacy and numerous other fallacies.

          http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

          February 20, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • sam stone

          well, fred, how can you be certain what jesus said since none of this stuff was written down until decades after he died?

          February 20, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
        • believerfred

          sam stone
          Job may be the oldest book in the Bible and the author is unknown yet this is a book of wisdom regardless. The words of Jesus are pure wisdom regardless of who the author is. The words of Jesus are just as powerful today as the day they were written regardless of author. Revelations of God have been passed down through oral and written form over thousands of years and in my personal experience there is power in the Word of God. The Word of God is written on a mans heart not the translation one happens to be reading. The imprint is direct from the Holy Spirit just as Jesus said it would be. The revelation and transformation is in the blink of an eye just as Jesus said it would be. It is a living Word of God who is the God of the living not the dead. Life is in the Word and it is breathed into man just as was in the beginning. The image of God then is gradually and continually revealed in the man who accepts the gift. It is the unveiling of the kingdom of God that confirms it is the Word of God not the codex or the authors identity.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:05 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          "You apparently don't read MUCH of the BIble. Yahweh says there are existence of FALSE gods..ones that don't exist"

          Of course it says that!!! The writers of that book didn't want the believers to sway off the path of the god they claimed is true.
          There are lots of pasages like that that fool you and only the gullible are too blind to see it for what it is!

          February 21, 2014 at 7:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          FIRST of all youmissed the point..MY response was intended for the one who says the BIBLE says there are many gods...yet they didn't say it was false ods..I was correcting them..second..YOu are such an arrogant fool..I keepo telling you all its NOT merely cause the Bible told me so..GOD proves it Himself! SO stop this foolish game and get to know us beter

          February 21, 2014 at 9:50 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You are such an arrogant delusional fool if you think God speaks to you!
          It is only the bible that represents your god and that is where your 'story' starts from, so stop with pretending.
          I was one of you and upon reading that bible at face value, came to realize it is a greater horror story than Stephen King ever wrote.
          How sad that you live this life to appease imaginary creatures...a form of mental illness!

          February 21, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • sam stone

          "The words of Jesus are pure wisdom regardless of who the author is. "

          So, words of fallible man are credited to this supposedly infallible being, and therefore taken as fact?

          wow. just wow

          February 21, 2014 at 7:31 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        our Freddie: serving up the comedy gold!

        February 20, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
      • joey3467

        Or people just die, and the whole serpent thing never happened. However, if you can show me a fossil of a snake with vocal chords I might change my mind.

        February 20, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • believerfred

          That voice which calls out to you and to me is not the result of sound waves but echo of your soul. Everyone hears it when the read the Bible and they always find exactly what they were looking for.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • joey3467

          I don't hear any voices calling out to me. If you do you should probably seek help.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          I can tell yo uare NO psycologist or such to make such claims..I work in psychology field...for 15 years...the peole know my beliefs..yet they are not about to make the same mistake you do by mrely taking one thing and suddenly someone is delusional and needs help.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:44 am |
        • joey3467

          Also, I have read the Bible and it is one of the main reasons that I don't believe in the Christian god.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Yes...unfortunately you only READ it but never STUDIED it..I have studied the Bible and I remain Christian...

          February 21, 2014 at 1:45 am |
        • igaftr

          fred
          If it is a possibility that it is god speaking to you, it is also a possibility it is satan, or one of the other thousands of gods, or you trying to convince yourself of god...you still have no evidence of any gods, so how do you know?

          Most likely it is just you WANTING it to beYOUR god, and simply reject the infinite other possibilities. You don't seek truth...you want your belief to be truth.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          No, I found that the words of Christ themselves actually were true through confirmation. In short Christ has done everything as stated by his written words. I have yet to find one time when promise was not fulfilled. If any of Christ promises prove themselves or my understanding in error then I could not consider other gods but be left with only a naturalistic understanding of existence.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
        • sam stone

          "I found that the words of Christ themselves actually were true through confirmation"

          translation

          'i want to believe, so i accept it'

          February 21, 2014 at 7:38 am |
        • kermit4jc

          Stop this c r a p of "I want it..so I will accept it" we want TRUTH/and when we ZfinD truth we accept it.you got it backwards..and IM sick of you doing this

          February 21, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          " IM sick of you doing this"

          You poor delusional child...must really suck to have reality handed to you by so many people! Too funny!

          February 21, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • sam stone

          too bad. if you don't like it you can

          1. stay off the forum
          2. not read my posts
          3. so-do-mize yourself with a cruicifix
          4. take a step out into traffic and go meet jesus
          or
          5. put on your big boy pants and accept that people believe differently than you

          February 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • otoh2

      I really don't understand why they thank "God" that they survived this or that mishap. Why would they be happy about staying here in this nasty, broken, "vale of tears"? I would think that they would mourn having been rejected from "paradise".

      February 20, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
      • believerfred

        Pain and pleasure tend to be great teachers. If we are ever going to appreciate what is truly good, eternally good some of us must exhaust all the perceived desires of this world as Solomon did. Eve desired a taste of the shinny thing before she was prepared for it and discovered the knowledge of good and evil as tempting as it may appear is not something man can understand outside the presence of God. Every time bad happens we ask why why because we do not understand outside the presence of God. When we search for Good it does not satisfy outside the presence of God. We remain here until we have revealed who we really are in Christ. Do we really want to give up everything and follow the way. A few do and at that point are taken up while the rest are left with what was most important to them. In short we make our bed and sleep in it for eternity.

        February 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • Bob

          fred, according to your Christian book of nasty AKA the bible, your mass-murdering, vengeful ass hole of a "god" is quite adept at causing pain. And your whole Jesus-sacrifice spiel is complete nonsense. How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

          Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          February 20, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • believerfred

          Bob
          I have explained that to you several times and nothing has changed.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • Bob

          Indeed, fred, what has not changed is that your "explanations" are as usual lacking substance and evidence, and are generally false. Again, the question you are unable to respond to with a valid answer: How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

          Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
          http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

          February 20, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
        • believerfred

          Bob
          "How is it again that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla?"
          =>The revelation of atonement and forgiveness by grace is revealed in love exactly where people are at a given time and place. This was the perfect time and method to reveal the truth of salvation through the cross and it revealed the heart of those who hate the light and those who fear God.

          "how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son"
          =>Jesus was fully man and the Son (Christ). It is only when we are in Christ as Jesus was that sins are forgiven and unity with the Father is restored. Man cannot do this on his own it is only in Christ that we are saved. It is not about popping up a replacement it is about man being brought back into unity.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:14 am |
  16. Alias

    @wolfbitr You posted
    "now run along, all youll do now is spam some excuse as to why you cannot"
    What makes you think they are on a treadmill?

    February 20, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Lets not feed the uneducated troll...if it is starved for attention and not given the chance to fight, it will eventually fade away much like its ilk Live4Him and Austin have.

      February 21, 2014 at 7:47 am |
      • Alias

        Yeah, I know.
        But I just could not resist applying his logic to one of his posts. I thought it was fun even if no one else did.
        Besides, have you been reading the stuff he posts? He is an aggressive little troll. He loves insulting people and acting superior because he studies ancient Hebrew. That in and of itself is funny. It takes an interest to study languages, not intelligence. He has taken the time to prepare for a 'moderated debate' of a biblical interpretation that he claims as his own. The truth is that is a very old interpretation that has been dismissed by scholars centuries ago.
        Wolfbitn even talked about challenging people 'in the ring' to show how right and manly he is! We all know how hard it is to talk tough on a web blog. (Yes, look at MY biceps you puny little girly-man!)
        He is condescending, rude, aggressive, insulting, arrogant and exactly the type of christian that first drove me out of christianity. I would not want to be part of any group that would accept him as a member.
        He is an excellent reason to question the validity of the bible, and does a better job of turning people toward the truth than most of the atheists on this blog.
        Let's keep him around for a while longer.

        Or you could use Google to find his boss. He did post his work email. I bet if his supervisor read some of the things he has written, and saw how much he has written; he would do more work and less trolling.

        February 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You're right. I would never cause a person issues with their work. With any luck what he is doing at work will be picked up on by someone and he'll have caused his own problems.
          He is another Ken Ham...he doesn't wish to debate, he only wishes to feel the power.
          Keeping him around does help our side.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
  17. Apple Bush

    The easiest explanation for life appears to be belief in a higher power. While there are many differences between believers in god(s), ultimately they can agree that the world is as it seems and god(s) are real.

    Humans haven’t got the slightest idea what “real” is or how life started on this or any other body in space. Our faculties are evolved to survive on Earth and pro-create. That’s it.

    Why would one believe they even have the necessary “senses” to see “reality”? Christianity and other religions are simply lazy. Too lazy to think beyond what they are told and contemplate the true mysteries of the cosmos.

    Only the hard working men and women doing science and those of us who live our lives without believing we are the center of attention truly enjoy the freedom of not knowing and the joy of trying to find out.

    Christianity and other religions are dinosaurs and inevitably lead to catastrophe time and time again.

    February 20, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
    • lngtrmthnkr

      Apple, I agree that the dinasours in religion lead to catastrophy again and again.

      February 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
  18. Jake Promenade

    No person should have to die of snake bites, there are antidotes that are quite effective for snake bites in this century.
    No person should have to die from dog bites. ~30 people die each year from vicious dog bites.
    No person should have to die of shark bites. ~<1 person dies each year from a shark attack.
    No child should have to die from human neglect. ~2000 children die from vicious human attacks.
    No unborn should die from suction or vacuum or other lethal medication. ~55 million unborn have died since '73.

    We are not hypocritical human beings when it comes to condemning deaths, we are equally concerned about death to mankind by any kind of animal species listed above. Save a life! Don't play with wild life if you can, tough luck if you happened to chance upon a wild animal listed above.

    February 20, 2014 at 9:27 am |
  19. Doc Vestibule

    No matter how close you believe you are to God, refusing medical treatment in hopes of a divine cure is suicidally absurd.
    It is astonishing just how many Christian sects are against doctors and medicine, especially in America.
    Christian Scientists believe that anybody can channel Christ's magical healing powers if they just adhere to the doctrine laid out by their founder, Mary Baker Eddy, back in the 1800's – thus making medical care unnecessary.
    Many of their followers have died due to negligence, includign 11 year old Ian Lundman who died of diabetes, 12 year old Elizabeth King who died of treatable cancer,and Michael Schram who died of a ruptured appendix at age 12.

    Believers from the Faith Tabernacle say that the Bible opposes all medical and surgical practices. They've got around 20,000 members. Some of their infants have died during childbirth, which is done at home and usually without so much as a midwife. Two kids, Melina Fridenberger (18 weeks) and Clayton Nixon (8 years) died of dehydration.

    Charles Meade, head of the End Time Ministries, preaches that illness is the work of The Devil brought on by lack of faith or unconfessed sin. They've lost many infants thanks to their refusal to seek any medical advice or assistance during birthing.

    The Church of the Firstborn's steadfast refusal of medicine forced the Oklahaoma legislature to change their religion exemption law after 9 year old Jason Lockhart died of appendicitis. There is now an addendum that "medical care shall be provided where permanent physical damage could result to a child."

    In Ohio, death rates among female members of the Faith Assembly in childbirth are 870 percent higher than among Indiana women in general.
    Death rates among their infants were 270 percent higher than the statewide average.

    At least 5 kids died of easily treatable illnesses becuase their parents were followers of The Christ Miracle Healing Center in Arizona.

    Religious faith is arguably the most powerful of all emotions. I can inspire the best in us, give solace in tough times times, and inspire us to be kinder, better people. But as evidenced by the many deaths that have occurred when people have relied on supernatural cures, unquestioning acceptance of dogma casts a shadow on reason,

    February 20, 2014 at 8:28 am |
  20. derado8

    I really don't think going by your own hand is the worst thing a person can do, you have "some" measure of control that way. You have hours or minutes of suffering as opposed to days or years. I can't say a snake bite is an easy option though.

    February 20, 2014 at 12:17 am |
1 2 3 4 5
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.