home
RSS
The Pope Francis 'book' of insults
Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI meet at the Mater Ecclesiae monastery at the Vatican last December.
February 19th, 2014
11:35 AM ET

The Pope Francis 'book' of insults

Opinion by Laurence England, special to CNN

(CNN) - In the year since Francis was elected Pope, the media have told us a certain story about this man “from the ends of the Earth,” as he once described himself.

Francis, we are told, is warm and friendly, gentle and compassionate. He embraces the poor, the disfigured, the outcast.

These attributes pose a sharp contrast, we are informed, to his mean-spirited, judgmental and arrogant predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who was known for his fancy vestments and aloof, academic attitude.

If Francis has the common touch, the story goes, Benedict was firmly out of touch, perched on an ivory tower far inside the Vatican.

To many Catholics this media-driven contrast between the two Popes is laughable.

Benedict may have been unpopular with the world and many of its opinion-makers, but those who loved him as the Holy Father, who listened to what he said and read what he wrote, knew a far different man than is cruelly caricatured in the media.

We welcomed Benedict's theology and liturgical vision; and the hallmark of his papacy was a deep humility rooted in prayer. He was ever the gentleman. Even his criticisms of trends in modern society that run contrary to the church’s teachings on life, marriage and the family were delivered in courteous language.

And when Benedict did say something likely to be deemed offensive, he was often extremely careful about the way in which he said it.

In fact, he was much more careful not to offend than his successor on the throne of St. Peter.

Each Pope has his own teaching style, and it is obvious that with Francis, adherence to protocol and upholding custom is not his way. His strength is communicating parts of the Catholic faith in a simple, direct and visible way.

But bluntness is a double-edged sword, and some of his speeches and sermons have offended some of the papacy's biggest supporters. This, of course, counters the image of Francis as the “gentle, pastoral shepherd.” In sifting through media reports, I was shocked by how often the Pope criticized Christians and by the severity of his insults.

I felt inspired by conversations with members of the clergy to compile a compendium of papal invective, calling it, tongue firmly in cheek,  “The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults.”

It is not a real book, of course. (This should have been obvious by the fact that I offered a 20% discount to anyone who directed one of the Pope’s insults at a bookstore cashier.) Rather, it's an online litany of the surprising and sometimes slashing one-liners in Francis' verbal arsenal.

Indeed, here's some of the names the Pope has actually called people: "pickled pepper-faced Christians," "closed, sad, trapped Christians," "defeated Christians," “liquid Christians,” "creed-reciting, parrot Christians," and, finally, those "watered-down faith, weak-hoped Christians."

Catholics who focus on church traditions are "museum mummies," the Pope says. Nuns who fail to inspire faith in the church are "old maids," and the Vatican hierarchy has at times been "the leprosy of the papacy," in Francis' words.

Indeed, men of the cloth face the brunt of Francis' fulminations. He has called some of them “vain” butterflies, “smarmy” idolators and “priest-tycoons.” He’s described some seminarians as potential “little monsters.”

The Pope didn't say these things just to insult people, of course. Rather, he was often making a larger point about the kind of church he wants to lead: open, merciful and unafraid.

MORE ON CNN: Pope Francis: No more business as usual

But at the same time, some Catholics have felt alienated by Francis’s criticisms, as if they are under attack. In blasting the status quo, it can sometimes seem as if the Pope is slighting the most faithful members of the church.

To be honest, reaction to my satirical “Pope Francis Little Book of Insults” has varied.

Some readers are so amused that they want to see the book really published so they can buy a copy. Others are outraged that I could dream up something so “disloyal” to the Pope. (I am hopeful that our Holy Father has a healthy sense of humor.)

I am also hopeful that, over time, Catholics will become accustomed to this pontiff’s style of teaching, even if it contradicts the shallow media image of “Francis the Friendly Pope,” as one well-known website calls him.

Speaking of media, Pope Francis hasn’t left journalists out of the fun. In a recent address, he called them “fomenters of coprophagia!”

If you don’t know what it means, look it up. But whatever you do, don’t complain and be like “Mr. and Mrs. Whiner.”

After all, as Pope Francis says, nobody likes a “sourpuss.”

Laurence England lives in Brighton, England, and writes the blog That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill. The views expressed in this column belong to England.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Catholic Church • Opinion • Pope Benedict XVI • Pope Francis

soundoff (712 Responses)
  1. Rainer Braendlein

    It doesn't matter, whether a kind pope sits on the papal throne or an impolite one, the papal office is corrupt in itself independent from the person holding it.

    Only one example: The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) which is always acknowledged by the current pope considers Islam as a legitimate religion, and Islamic believers as people which will inherit the soul's health one day even if they remain Muslims up to the end of their life.

    This is such an outrageous betrayal of Christianity that I am at a loss of words to describe that.

    The Koran clearly says that Jesus was only a man. The Islam denies the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. Therefore the Islam is anti-Christian, and no Muslim believer will ever inherit the Kingdom of God save he converts to Christianity.

    The popes are responsible for the soul's death of millions of Muslims because the popes keep the fiction they could remain Muslims, and there would be no need to convert to Christianity in order to get saved.

    I believe that Jesus Christ will kill the pope personally when he returns from the heavens together with all his saints.

    http://confessingchurch.wordpress.com

    Current calamity:

    Mainline churches (for example the RCC) are full of philistinism at least in Germany. Possibly, a member of such a church never gets informed about the gospel of Jesus Christ there (that is sad reality). It could happen that a member of a mainline church gets informed about the gospel for the first time in his life through a Free Church. Maybe he will rejoice when he is told the gospel. Yet, nearly all Free Churches (at least in Germany) practise rebaptism – they don't acknowledge the infant baptism of the mainline churches. Yet, a church which rebaptizes, doesn't belong to the real Christian Church. All members of rebaptizing Free Churches will get lost (sounds harsh but is true).

    Therefore many naive people jump out of the frying pan into the fire. Joining a Free Church doesn't mean progress but regress. Free Churches desecrate infant baptism, and therefore their members fail to follow Jesus because they lack the releasing power which they could get through infant baptsim and Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection.

    The devil has laid a big snare.

    February 21, 2014 at 9:27 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Rainer,

      Religion established by humans are both divisive and destructive. God did not say call ursf catholics, christians, muslims, buddist, whatever. All he wish for is for us to believe.

      Insinuating that Jesus kills is going over the top. It is not his teachings but yours.

      You are generalizing. Like saying kill all germans during ww2. What about germans who opposed the war? Kill em too? Not that i condoned the war contrary to the teachings of God and what i am advocating for.

      Peace

      February 21, 2014 at 11:26 am |
      • Rainer Braendlein

        The whole matter has nothing to do with Germans and WW2. What do you mean?

        I only said that Jesus will kill the Prophet of the Beast, according to Revelation.

        February 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Rainer,

          What i meant was do not generalize, condem the whole inst:tution. There are others who really want to do the right thing in that inst:tution.

          I admire your passion for the belief in God. I just find at times you show the evil tendencies we are trying to oppose. Let us be who we are not who they are.

          Peace

          February 21, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • Rainer Braendlein

          If there there are people '"wanting to do the right thing", then they should shift to the Christian Church (God's House), and not stay in the house of abomination.

          February 21, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Rainer,

          See now your saying your chrich is better than theirs. God did not say call urself christians, catholics, jews, muslims, buddist, whatever. God wish is for us to believe. Believe in Gods teachings.

          Peace

          February 21, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
  2. bootyfunk

    i wish the pope would put more effort into rooting out the molesters in his ranks. he's said a lot of flowery words - and apparently some unflattering words - but he's done nothing to change church dogma or doctrine. he's said the same thing the other popes said - "we're really gonna go after those molester priests this time!" but he hasn't changed policy so that priests go immediately to the authorities and cooperate fully to ferret out, arrest and try molesters in the church. the vatican knows of priestly offenders but don't make their names public - they still hide and protect the molesters instead of the children.

    time's man of the year? what has the pope actually DONE to deserve it?

    February 20, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Boo,

      It is not Popes duty to root out molesters. You may not understand teachings of God. Forgiveness to those who repent. Compassion. Let the laws of humans handle the rooting out of molesters. Pope is here to guide not to root out evil. He already know what is evil.

      Peace

      February 21, 2014 at 11:40 am |
      • snuffleupagus

        Pea, it is ideed the pope's responsiblity. He is the head of the RCC ans wll as a head of stateWhat happens on their watch is supposed to be taken care of, not swept "under the rug." He has done nothing but throw out plat:tudes an obfuscate, whils hoping the matter of child molestations die down. Not gonna happen. BTW You god is supposed to be so awesome and loving, yet KNEw those kids would be molested?This was in his grand scheme of things,his plan and a fore ordained cause for these youngsters? Pea, your god is sick, sick, sick.

        February 21, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Snuff,

          Popes responsibility then God is sick? Contradicting statement. Do you believe or not?

          Peace

          February 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
  3. bostontola

    Let's, for the sake of argument, assume there is a God that created the universe and life.

    We know for a fact that he didn't design it to a static point design. Even in our tiny window of time, we can see the earth is changing, and life is changing (species have gone extinct, environments have changed, etc.). The universe itself is changing. We can directly observe stars go supernova and watch as heavier elements are created by natural processes in the supernova core. Whatever God started with, the universe has changed from that (even in a young earth scenario to stretch the assumption).

    So, if changes have and are happening, and God is ok with that, then why is God mediated evolution so distasteful to some? Design to a static point is out of the question, so God must be using the change process as part of his design process, aka evolution, no?

    February 20, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I think so.

      In some ways I think the Adam & Eve story is the story of human beings evolving. At some point, people really didn't know the difference between good and evil. People were strictly driven by instincts. As we developed, our minds became capable of grasping that knowledge. Although we haven't been equipped to fully appreciate or understand it. We gained the ability to know the difference between good and evil, and started choosing evil things. That led to things like fear, greed, dishonesty and shame that motivate so much of humanity's problems.

      And the lesson of the story: Things like fear, greed, dishonesty and shame have an origin. It is not from God, but from people choosing evil.

      February 20, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
      • commonsensed01

        So: If "we gained the ability to know good from evil", why do I need a Bible to tell me what is good when I already knew it? Also, why would God allow all the innocent children to die but bother to muck around with evolution?
        Why hasn't one person regrown an amputated limb through prayer?
        How many of the 600+ commandments do you really believe in? If not all of them, why not?
        If you don't follow the old testament, why? Isn't it still in the Bible? Is it just there because the writers got paid based on word count?

        February 20, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          + why do I need a Bible to tell me what is good when I already knew it?

          You don't need the Bible to tell you what is good. It might help you understand things, like what it means to live in an imperfect world.

          + Also, why would God allow all the innocent children to die but bother to muck around with evolution?

          I don't think he is mucking with evolution. I think that is how God creates.

          + Why hasn't one person regrown an amputated limb through prayer?

          Most people who believe in God and are missing a limb don't just pray for the limb to grow back. They understand that God still sees them as a whole and complete person. They probably pray that they do the best with what they have.

          + How many of the 600+ commandments do you really believe in? If not all of them, why not?

          Love God and love others. "The 10 Commandments" are good ones to follow, but some of them need a modern interpretation to fully understand. I probably follow the same kind of ideals as you. I don't follow the commandments giving to Levite Priests, for example, because I'm not a Levite Priest.

          + If you don't follow the old testament, why? Isn't it still in the Bible? Is it just there because the writers got paid based on word count?

          The Bible is just a book. It contains poetry, history, letters, etc. It is not just a book of commandments I try to follow. The Bible describes different things. So just because something is described in the Bible, doesn't mean I have to support it. A lot of times it was painting a picture of what the people were like.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
        • Reality

          The Egyptian's Book of the Dead and its detailed version of the Ten Commandments and Hammurabi's Code predated the OT by many centuries showing that moral evolution had already matured. The Jewish scribes simply borrowed the ideas from others as they did for most if not all the OT.

          February 20, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      God is omnipotent.
      She created a race of robots with free will who could create universes to play with, if they chose.
      The rules say that the one that gets the most idiots in their universe to believe a "deity done it" wins.
      Our robot thanks you.

      February 20, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
      • Reality

        As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, his God is not omniscient. Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

        Church: The Human Story of God,
        Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

        "Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

        "Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

        Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.

        For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

        February 21, 2014 at 7:02 am |
  4. realbuckyball

    Someone should tell these guys that wearing whites is just not cool after Labor Day.

    February 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      So what's the date between one Labor day and the next when you can wear white again?

      February 20, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
      • hotairace

        Usually Memorial Day but you should consult your cult's fashion shaman to be sure. No Memorial Day in your country? Start praying – you will get the right answer, maybe.

        February 20, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          And if you don't like the answer, just pray. Prayer changes things.
          I think I read that somewhere.

          February 20, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
    • Reality

      The garb is all about tradition analogous to the white robes worn by the equally brainwashed Muslim sheiks.

      February 21, 2014 at 7:04 am |
  5. Dalahäst

    How about Helen Keller?

    In one of her letters, Helen told Bishop Brooks that she had always known about God, even before she had any words. Even before she could call God anything, she knew God was there.

    She didn't know what it was. God had no name for her-nothing had a name for her. She had no concept of a name. But in her darkness and isolation, she knew she was not alone. Someone was with her. She felt God's love. And when she received the gift of language and heard about God, she said she already knew.

    Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/christianity/687203-helen-keller-blind-deaf-but-knew.html#ixzz2ttqTrIGm

    February 20, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Alias

      A desperate person found comfort in her imagination.
      Yep, typical christian right there.
      Just be happy she wasn't given a Koran, then she would have given people reason to believed in some other god.

      February 20, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Ever read Stranger in a Strange Land?
      Thou art God. All that groks is God.

      February 20, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
    • colin31714

      And had her parents been Hindu, she would have felt Bramah, Vishnu and Krishna. If Muslim, she would have felt Allah, if Australian Aboriginal, she no doubt would have experienced the dreamtime ancestors comforting her.

      Genuine internal feelings, no matter how comforting or honestly held, are not at all probative of external reality.

      February 20, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        The only fact is she wasn't any of those. Hypothetical.

        “I thank God for my handicaps. For through them, I have found myself, my work and my God.”
        ― Helen Keller

        February 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • Creationists say the darndest things

          Of course how could she truly realize what she was missing...

          February 20, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          The people around her were christians, so their words of comfort were couched in the language of their religion – as with all children she would have learned the religion of her family or society. No mystery. No revelation. She learned about the christian god from the christians around her.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. That is partly how I learn about God, too.But not entirely. She claims she had knowledge about God before anyone taught her anything.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Everything she, (and we) "think", are the product of learning, and Genetics, and epigenetics. The brain's electircal pathways evolved through evolution to promote survival, NOT to "obtain the most truth".

          February 20, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
    • Creationists say the darndest things

      "Helen told Bishop Brooks ... "

      or is it "Helen "told" Bishop Brooks...

      If the latter, I wonder what her fee was...

      I mean it may very well be true, but you link to another blog where someone is describing reading her letters???

      February 20, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Helen wrote books. I can only imagine they match up with her stated beliefs.

        “The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched, they must be felt with the heart.”

        Helen Keller

        February 20, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          Helen did not have the advantage of sight. What if your "God" had healed her and given her vision? What would she have said then? Also, what if she was ever able to hear Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue?

          Helen was a person who overcome being blind and deaf and accomplished a few good things. However, i don't look to her as being an expert on the senses since she was lacking two very important ones.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          We all have limits and inadequacies. Usually overcoming them builds strength and character.

          I think she was also saying knowledge doesn't only come from seeing and feeling something. We have hearts, not just minds. ....there is more to this world than meets the eye.

          "I seldom think about my limitations, and they never make me sad. Perhaps there is just a touch of yearning at times; but it is va.gue, like a breeze among flowers." -HK

          February 20, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          Yes I do have a heart and a mind. My heart pumps blood, I don't tend to feel it until I do something really strenuous. My brain does all my thinking and "feeling" thank you.
          Quoting a religious person does nothing to prove or reinforce your own belief and certainly doesn't do anything to change an atheist's mind.
          Newton was a brilliant mathematician, but his thoughts on religion are meaningless.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'll quote from the dictionary:

          Heart:

          " the emotional or moral as distinguished from the intellectual nature: as
          a : generous disposition : compassion -a leader with heart-
          b : love, affection -won her heart-
          c : courage, ardor -never lost heart-"

          one's innermost character, feelings, or inclinations -knew it in his heart- -a man after my own heart- "

          It is not just an organ that pumps blood.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          I don't need the dictionary to erroneously tell me what my heart is and is not capable of doing. There are no emotions in my heart.

          February 20, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
        • hotairace

          Do heart transplant recipient's affections change after surgery? Seems to me if the heart is where emotions reside then emotions should be transferred with the organ. Or does the body have a backup/restore mechanism to tuck emotions safely away prior to surgery?

          February 20, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – Do heart transplant recipient’s affections change after surgery?

          Yes.

          February 20, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • hotairace

          So you can point to docu.mented cases of the person receiving a donor heart all of sudden, following surgery, falling/being in love with the heart donor's spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc? Not simply being appreciative to the donor's family, actually in love exactly as the donor was prior to their death? This should be interesting. . .

          February 20, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • hotairace

          Thanks! You didn't disappoint.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:27 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I was kidding.

          The heart is not just an organ that pumps blood.

          It is also a concept about the inner-most being of a person that is completely unrelated to the organ. That is what the other definitions I provided demonstrated.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • hotairace

          "The heart" is not a concept.

          "Heart" is a concept.

          One is physical, the other is not.

          The heart is an organ that just pumps blood.

          And yes, one can construct sentences where "the heart" refers to "heart" the concept, but go ahead and play Wolfie Word Games if you must.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:09 am |
    • bostontola

      Dalahast,
      I believe her.

      My speculation:
      The Human brain has developed in a social context. We need others as much as we need our arms and legs. Our brain expects inputs from sensory organs, body parts, and other people. If we don't get that input, the brain creates it (phantom limb experiences). We have entire parts of our brain dedicated to simulating other people's thought process and feelings, so we can anticipate and have productive interactions (mirror neurons). God is a phantom "limb" in her (our) mirror neurons keeping her (us) from being alone. Imagine how lonely Ms. Keller felt.

      February 20, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Interesting theory. Keller also said there was some knowledge that couldn't be obtained via science, especially in regards to love.

        February 20, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          How would Ms. Keller know that that knowledge couldn't be obtained by science?

          February 20, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • derado8

          I think Dalahast is referring to the hard problem of consciousness.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          She believes that. Love is an experience that is difficult to express. But reveals knowledge. I don't think science will ever be able to duplicate or systematically observe it adequately.

          Such understandings and findings via science seem... unloving and misguided.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          You may be right regarding should we get this knowledge, but science is getting close anyway. They have isolated brain chemicals and specific brain regions associated with love. I think with time and the brain connection project going on, science will likely crack that nut. Like I said, it is an ethical question of should we, probably not can we.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That may not really be love they are discovering. At least not how the poets define it.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
      • derado8

        Well said. I'm sure it is complicated. For example there are some people who believe in ghosts due to grief reactions. The mind is complex. There is also such a thing as temporal lobe seizures and temporal lobe epilepsy and that causes visitations (aliens/celestial ect..).

        February 20, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
      • bostontola

        Dalahast,
        You may be right regarding should we get this knowledge, but science is getting close anyway. They have isolated brain chemicals and specific brain regions associated with love. I think with time and the brain connection project going on, science will likely crack that nut. Like I said, it is an ethical question of should we, probably not can we.

        February 20, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Hate to do this to you, but I think the Bible is right in this regard:

          "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

          I think it is explained very well without science.

          February 20, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Well we can rule out the god of the bible being "Love".

          February 20, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • derado8

          I know what the color red looks like to me, but I do not know what the color red looks like to you.

          February 21, 2014 at 2:36 am |
      • derado8

        This question is for Dalahast.

        If there was a person who due to a combination of dreams/nightmares/coincidence and seizure activity was having visitations from a god they did not believe in, say an obscure god that no one worshiped anymore. Would that person then need to concede that that god exists?

        February 21, 2014 at 2:46 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No.

          February 21, 2014 at 11:04 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Scientists can replicate the feeling of god, or a presence in an individual artifically. First thing they do is deprive the person of sight and sound.....Helen Keller was blind and deaf. So it is not surprising that she "felt a presence".

      February 20, 2014 at 11:50 pm |
      • derado8

        http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/12/24/the-future-of-neurotheology/

        February 21, 2014 at 2:38 am |
      • Dalahäst

        That has been happening for a very long time via drugs.

        February 21, 2014 at 11:03 am |
  6. thefinisher1

    Seriously! The atheists on this blog! Why do atheists ignore the question of why doesn't non-belief show itself ending all doubts? Is their non-belief not logical as they claim? Or does non-belief not exist? Why do atheists avoid answering these questions? I guess they know atheism is weak but deny the truth at all costs.

    February 20, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • igaftr

      "why doesn't non-belief show itself ending all doubts?"
      That is just a stupid question .
      You don't believe a lot of things, can you ask the same question on those non-beliefs.

      Try asking a valid question, you may get a valid answer.

      February 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Atheists claim that non-belief is logical, superior, and right. Asking why doesn't non-belief show itself ending all doubt that there is no God is valid.

        February 20, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          do you pray to belief? No you pray to what you believe to be a god.
          it is not the belief you think exists, so asking something of non-belief is asking for a concept to do something.

          We do not ask your belief to show itself, we ask you to have what your believe to show itself.
          You want something that we do not believe exists to show itself?,,,where is the logic in that?

          Do you see now why that is a ridiculous impossible, invalid question yet?

          February 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • hotairace

          Give us time. Believers are losing market share, pretty much everywhere, except in developing countries with high birth rates. What's interesting is believers are reducing their numbers by about 1,000,000 per year in developed countries by ignoring their cult's rules about abortions. I don't know if high birth rates in under developed countries are a result of ignoring some god's prohibitions on s3x and adultery.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Atheists claim that non-belief is logical, superior, and right. You act like its a god so.....it's valid asking it. It's showing just how stupid you atheists truly are when it comes to asking questions you know is meant to troll. Not so fun being trolled back with the same question eh? Then don't use it.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Alias

          You must be getting hit in the head on a regular basis.
          It is the only way you could be getting bumber with each passing post.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • colin31714

          Because you cannot prove a negative in this context. Just like you do not believe in Santa Claus, despite there being no definitive proof of his non existence. This isn't hard stuff!

          February 20, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • igaftr

          You still don't get it, do you
          Let's try again...I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

          We do not ask your belief to show itself, we ask your god.
          You are asking non-belief to show itself? Here it is, my non belief is right here.
          You are not turning the question around, you are changing it to an invalid question.

          For you to turn it around, you would have to ask for a non-existant thing to appear...invalid, impossible and not logical.
          It is not a two way street.

          I hope I didn't type too fast for you to read this.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Atheists act like non-belief is a god so..it's only fair. It's showing jus how stupid it is to ask troll-type questions you know will make people respond. Doggy does it all time. Why not tell him it's stupid huh? Protecting other atheists stupidity I see. Typical. Cult mentality right there. Lie for each other in the name of atheism.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Atheists act like non-belief is a god"
          How could one possibly act like not believing in something is a god...more non-logic. Did that actually make sense to you in your head?
          Hilarious...Atheists act like NOTHING is god...by definition.

          baseless assumption...but hilarious.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          The finisher, when will you finish making your ridiculous statements about non-belief being our God?

          February 20, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Because you worship non-belief like its a god. Duh. Next Troll pleae.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          I believe in science and reason like I believe in a God? Says you. But not me.

          I don't believe in a God because through science, experience, education, reading the Bible and a host of other reasons, I find no:
          1. Reason a God is required to explain anything that has or continues to happen in the universe. It is explained through science without the need for a God.
          2. I see no evidnece of any God behind anything in the present, past or future.
          The bible shows an untold amount of intolerance, hatred, sacrifice, and overbearing punishment by a "jealous" (His words, not mine) God.
          3. The Bible contradicts itself at almost every turn.
          4. I inherently know right from wrong far before I viewed a Bible. Morality has been shown to be inherent in human nature.
          5. I do good for my fellow man because I feel it is the thing I should do, not because of a threat that I will be punished if I don't do good.
          6. I don't fear death. I am confident in my understanding in science that when I die, I will decompose. My rational thought or "soul" as you may call it, will cease to function and therefore cease to exist. I do not find this depressing, it helps me remember that I've got things to do and there is little time to do them.
          7. Spending time praying to something that I don' find any reason to exist is a waste of time. It is better if I get out there and do things.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      1. We asked God to appear
      2. He did not appear
      3. Therefore God does not exist
      🙂

      February 20, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
      • Alias

        1 You offer me a book full of errors and rediculas stories
        2 I reject your silliness
        3 You tell me I'll burn in hell forever

        February 20, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          3 You tell me I'll burn in hell forever

          Wrong.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • Alias

          You don't know your bible very well.
          It is prety clear that i'll be smoking turds in hell for being an atheist.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          And I'll burn in the ground according to atheists for rejecting their religion. No difference.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Some of the writer's in the Bible say God will destroy the evil things in the world.

          Not that you will burn in hell forever.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          "And I'll burn in the ground according to atheists for rejecting their religion. No difference."

          Did you even think about that? There is no atheist religion nor therefore dogma. An atheist doesn't say you'll "burn in the ground" only that you'll decompose in the ground like all once-living things. There is no religion to reject.
          You must know that by now – are you trolling?

          February 20, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • Akira

          "And I’ll burn in the ground according to atheists for rejecting their religion. No difference."

          Who, EVER, made this claim in all seriousness? Link it.
          Willfully lying is breaking a rather important Commandment, n'est ce pas?

          February 20, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
      • Peaceadvocate2014

        Dala,

        Same illogical logic.

        Something is better than Nothing.
        Nothing is better than God.
        Is Something better than God? Or Nothing?

        Peace

        February 21, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • In Santa We Trust

      It has been pointed out to you several times that changing a sentence to substitute atheist for theist generally creates a nonsensical question.

      February 20, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Because atheists, (as opposed to *some believers*) don't think they get to make up whatever god of the gap(s) is necessary to grant themselves cognitive closure. Look up "ambiguity tolerance". Clearly you have none.
      "We don't know yet and may never know" may just have to be an acceptable answer.
      "Oh god did it" is the Santa Claus postulate.

      February 20, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Fill in the gaps? "I believe God was not there but my opinion is superior to yours!" That mentality shows just how stupid many atheists become. Notice the word •opinion• because it's YOUR opinion. "Goddidit". Funny, the bible doesn't explain how God did everything. Maybe atheists should stop claiming to know more than Christians on the bible. It's all a lie.

        February 20, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          @thefinisher1

          you are either staggeringly stupid or a staggeringly effective troll ... I still can't make up my mind which.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
        • hotairace

          If "god did it" is not a universal truth then how/where do you draw the line between what god did and what something/someone else did?

          February 20, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • hotairace

          And you are probably correct – most likely The Babble is all a lie. :^))

          February 20, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          I actually do know FAR more about the Babble than you do.
          Read the post again. I said NOTHING about the Bible. Nothing.
          I don't "believe" anything. The is NO EVIDENCE any god was there, or anywhere, or did anything.
          I have nothing to explain. Maybe you might invest in a course in critical thinking.
          YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim with NO evidence.

          February 21, 2014 at 12:27 am |
  7. Dyslexic doG

    Seriously! Christians on this blog. Stop dodging the question and answer me. "Why doesn't your god appear to the world and put an end to any doubt?" According to your book he used to show himself pretty often back in the day, so it can't be hard for him to do. Showing himself and removing all doubt would have tremendous positive effect on the whole world.

    February 20, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Seek humility. 🙂

      February 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        another dodge.

        February 20, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not really. Pride, arrogance, certainty and self-centerdness are obstacles to knowing God.

          There are certain principles and practices you can adopt that can lead to humility and may help you understand God in a different way than you have been searching.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          OK, but why are you still dodging?

          Why doesn't your god appear to the world and put an end to any doubt?" According to your book he used to show himself pretty often back in the day, so it can't be hard for him to do. Showing himself and removing all doubt would have tremendous positive effect on the whole world.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          You do know doggy that God's true image cannot be seen by people who are alive? You'll ignore the reason why but the bible clearly states why. You ignore it on purpose. The bible NEVER describes the image of God because no human language can describe it. You want to toy with believers with stupid questions the bible answers and you deny it on purpose. Stupid dog.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I can't imagine it is hard or difficult for Him.

          Maybe it is better that He doesn't? He wants us to come to Him through our hearts. Not just our minds.

          The answer: I don't know. That is why it is called a mystery. And we must seek to find.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • hotairace

          Come on doG! Ya gotta believe to believe! Just put all reason and laws of physics and embrace GOD!!

          February 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • new-man

          I've answered this so many times. I know that many don't understand but ....

          Answer:
          Apart from salvation – which is a major deal, Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension made it possible for the Holy Spirit to come and dwell inside a human being bodily.
          If you can understand the full impact of the above statement, you will not ask again why doesn't God show Himself in the sky.
          The same Spirit (The Spirit of God, The Holy Spirit, Wisdom, El Shaddai) dwells bodily inside a human being when that person becomes born again!
          The same Spirit that Raised Jesus from the dead, dwells inside a person who is baptized in the Holy Ghost.
          It is Christ in You – The Hope of Glory. God lives in us and through us by His Spirit.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "The bible NEVER describes the image of God "
          If man is created in God's image, does it not stand to reason that God is anthropomorphic?

          February 20, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • new-man

          These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
          26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
          27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. John 14:25-27

          February 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've heard we are created in God's "image" as in awareness.

          Like God created humans and the stars. The stars are powerful and magnificent, and demonstrate God's power. But they are not aware of us. But we are aware of the stars. And that is being made in God's image.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Why can you not see your body Thetans?
          First you must believe in Thetans, then you'll be able to communicate with them spiritually – they are no longer corporeal and don't hear vocalizations.
          Once you'e explained what Xenu did to them, you will become Clear to achieve your full potential.
          But before you can become an Operating Thetan, you must first accept the invisible reality of Thetan influence on your soul and believe The Truth of the Galactic Overlord's hand in it.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          @thefoolish1
          God CAN be seen:
          "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
          "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
          "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

          February 20, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • new-man

          DV:
          Fallen man is progressing back to the image of God, his creator.
          Consider the following verses:
          [1] Genesis 1:27 So God [Elohim] created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

          So above we see that man (or the men and women) created in the image of God must have been spirits because they were created in the very image of Elohim. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

          Elohim here is plural – referring to the male and female attributes of God (Elohim) ↔ [Yahweh El Shaddai].

          But what about Adam and thus our present dwelling in the earth realm?

          [2] Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

          Taken from Dayspring From on High

          It seems that there were two levels of activity. There was a creation (Genesis chapter 1) that was in the image of Elohim (male and female) first.This creation seemed to exist as being but yet not “in the earth”. Then at a latter point (Gen chap 2), a “forming” – not a creation – took place. It was not necessarily in the exact image of Elohim. In the second level (Adam), there were three elements added:

          (1) a soul
          (2) a tree of choosing between good and evil
          (3) a body of dust.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          That doesn't mean God looks like a man. You do know that most of the time, God appeared using the angel of The Lord? His true form is NEVER explained. Actually it stated why. Atheists ignore it on purpose and claim to be more educated than Gods on the bible. Funny, atheists tend to leave out key important information but always ask stupid questions. Did it ever occur to you that God wants you to decide for yourself? Do you consider it wrong that a parent or another human being forces God onto you but you want God to force himself into your life when you aren't inviting him in? Humans do it it's wrong. When God does it..you're ok with that? I would atheists would hate it if God forced himself into your life. Your questions are childish.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times:
          If the One True Deity, shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          You know what's really funny? If God appeared to atheists, you would shrug it off as a delusion so...your questions are really expressing the stupidity of atheism. There's seriously no point in atheists asking for proof. You'll just call it a delusion, laugh, and continue to mock believers. We all know you would.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • joey3467

          The fact that there is nothing to make you change your mind about god, doesn't mean that is the same for everyone else. If god appeared to the whole world at the same time that would be pretty convincing. I would also find aliens coming to Earth and trying to convert me to Christianity to be evidence that perhaps your god exists. The Bible, however, I count as evidence against god.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • otoh2

          finisher,
          "If God appeared to atheists, you would shrug it off as a delusion so."

          Wouldn't a real all-smart god know how to remedy that?
          Wouldn't a real all-powerful god be able to remedy that?
          Wouldn't a real all-loving & all-just god do it?

          'He' allegedly did it for your fabled Doubting Thomas. I don't think we need to be "more blessed" than Ol' Tom.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • igaftr

          finished
          "If God appeared to atheists, you would shrug it off as a delusion"
          another false assumption.
          God would know exactly what I would accept as evidence. If given said evidence I would accept. As yet nothing even remotely close.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Funny, atheism is evidence for God. Look how much it gets you all riled up. If there really is no God, why would you want to convince yourself there is? Oh yeah. You believe that. You don't know it. So according to atheist logic, you deserve mockery for having faith. Pat yourself on the back!😜

          February 20, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • otoh2

          finisher,
          "atheism is evidence for God. Look how much it gets you all riled up."

          Atheism is evidence for theism... that's all. And it's theists like you, who say inane, fantastical things, that get us "riled up" (if you want to call it that).

          February 20, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
      • new-man

        DV:
        It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

        As a king and priest DV, it is to your honor to search out the mysteries of Godliness. Jesus is your King of Kings and your High Priest.
        Besides, a huge part of the mystery was revealed:

        Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
        27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
        28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

        I promise, if you meditate on the above verses, you will see God and will have no need to ask why doesn't He show Himself in the sky.

        February 20, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          Well, I see passages written by men who clearly want others to do what they want.
          You see, some of us have rational thought. Bronze age (and later writings) sponsored by people in power, wanting to keep that power, don't do much for the skeptic. I've read the Bible and see it for the mash of incoherent ancient stories that it is. Sure there are a few good allegories that make good lessons. But for the most part, Santa Claus, the Great Pumpkin and Mother Goose present their morals cleaner and with better rhymes.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
    • Alias

      You know why.

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

        They don't know why, but we do.

        February 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          yep.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
    • thefinisher1

      Asinine.

      February 20, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        another dodge.

        February 20, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Nope. I just repeat what you always say thus showing you how stupid you truly are.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          I think you are an adherent of one of the 41,000 sects of Christianity ... so please answer me:

          Why doesn't your god appear to the world and put an end to any doubt?" According to your book he used to show himself pretty often back in the day, so it can't be hard for him to do. Showing himself and removing all doubt would have tremendous positive effect on the whole world.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          He really didn't show Himself that often "back in the day."

          February 20, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          OK, thanks dalahast. At least you had something to say. Appreciate it.

          What do you think. 10 times? 20 times? How often did god speak to humans or show himself?

          February 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I think He might speak to people in all kinds of different ways. I'm skeptical when people tell me God has told them something, especially when it is something that seems to benefit that person and not much else.

          I'm not sure anyone has seen Him.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          God speaks to people all the time.
          In 2008, He told Boyce Singleton Jr. to shoot and stab his pregnant girlfriend.
          Deanna Laney heard God direct her to bludgeon her three sons, aged 9, 6 and 15 months. Only the youngest survived.
          Blair Donnelly received instructions to stab to death his 16 year old daughter, Stephanie.
          Christopher Varian was slaughtered with a cheese knife after God spoke with one of his employees.
          God told Jennifer Cisowski to dash her infant's head on the rocks, so ""Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool."
          Khandi Busby got a direct message from God advising her that the only way to save her 6 and 8 year old boys was to toss them off a bridge in Dallas. Fortunately, they survived.
          Angel Rico says he received a divine command to strangle his 4 year old son, so he did just that and left him at the side of the highway.
          Lashaun Harris threw her 3 young kids into the San Francisco Bay after God let her know that He wanted a human sacrifice.
          All of these people have been found legally insane by the judicial system, so if you hear God's voice speaking to you, it's time to check with your local psych ward to see if you need a huggy jacket.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • hotairace

          Why is it that all alleged but never proven gods (which includes all alleged gods) stopped making appearances about the same time as cameras became readily available? Go ahead, convince me your imaginary buddy is just shy.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  8. Dyslexic doG

    Why doesn't your god appear to the world and put an end to any doubt?

    He seems to be narcissistic enough and vain enough and insecure enough to want all the adoration and all the worship of every person in the world. Your book which you keep bleating is the "word of god", certainly sees god commanding you endlessly to adore him and worship him and bow before him and idolize him and praise him. "Oh love me, love me, tell me how wonderful I am!"

    It would be effortless for him to show himself, like he seemed to do pretty regularly back in the bronze age, and he wouldn't have to send so many people either born in the wrong place or people trusting logic and science over blind faith, to eternal fire and pain and torment. Surely, if he is the loving god that you claim, he would be anxious to save all these people rather than damn them?

    is he so cruel that wants all these people in hell when he could so easily avoid it??

    February 20, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • thefinisher1

      Asinine.

      February 20, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        Why?

        February 20, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Just because doG feels God is narcissistic, vain and insecure doesn't mean God is narcissistic, vain and insecure.

          It probably says more about doG than God.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • joey3467

          He is just going off what the bible says about god.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          the bible says ALL of those things and christians loudly proclaim that the bible is the word of god.

          have it your way though. just admit that the bible is not the word of god and I will accept your claim that god may not be narcissistic, vain and insecure.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I think doG is describing himself.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh, no. I'm just going to disagree with your understanding, doG.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          keep dodging.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There is nothing to dodge.

          I understand some people think God is a vengeful, vindictive pri.ck. So what?

          I know Him as a loving God.

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

          I'm reasonably certain doG exists. I'm reasonably certain god does not exist. doG wins any doG/god debate until god or real evidence for god shows up.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          @Dalahäst. The bible describes him as all those nasty things. You "know" him somehow ... in your mind perhaps ... as a loving god. Does that mean that the bible is wrong in much of what it describes?

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

          People in the Bible described their experiences, understandings and misunderstandings, faith and doubts about God. Overall, those understandings are positive and hopeful.

          It also describes other things, not necessarily trying to describe what God was. Some of it describes what people are and what they are like.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • new-man

          ddoG: "Does that mean that the bible is wrong in much of what it describes?"

          It means that you are wrong in your understanding of who God is.
          It's the goodness of God that leads a person to repentance-change their mind about God. So until you have that revelation of God's love, you will continue to see Him as all the unpleasant things that you've described.

          God hates no nation. He hates no man. He created them all. Jesus paid for every soul in every nation. We all belong to Him.
          (What about Egypt that I just mentioned below: Egypt held something that belonged to God. God said to Moses – tell Pharaoh let my people go, because they are mine.) Tell me, who wouldn't want a God that fights for them.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
    • new-man

      You are the temple of God. Ask yourself why hasn't God shown Himself in you?
      It's all on you friend.
      We all have to deal with the spirit of pride that continuously rears its ugly head declaring itself as God.

      February 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        and you, a person in the 21st century, can honestly read that cult-speak that you just wrote and not shake your head and think "hang on, what the heck am I doing here?!?!"? You can't look at that fantasy, fairy tale magical voodoo paragraph you just penned and think, "wait a minute, this bears no resemblance to reality, It must be just years of indoctrination making me write this stuff"?

        February 20, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • new-man

          Well, actually I think just the opposite. I think how can you not see that you are a spiritual being inside a earthen/clay vessel.
          Just like astronauts need a spacesuit for survival in space... that's the same function your body of clay serves in this earthly realm.
          I have no problem with you referring to God as a magician. He is the biggest and greatest magician there is... just ask the Egyptians 🙂

          February 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • joey3467

          Just so you know that whole 10 Plagues things is just another in a long line of things in the bible that never happened.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • hotairace

          Magicians are deceivers, liars, scam artists, illusionists, fakers, phonies and charlatans. I'm surprised you would want your alleged but never proven god to have any of those attributes never mind being the best at them, but saying anything to the gullible to keep the delusions going is consistent with believer behavior.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
  9. 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 2:43 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

      February 20, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • thefinisher1

      Asinine.

      February 20, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      False. Circular reasoning.

      February 20, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        wha?

        February 20, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          They'll probably be amazed at the contributions to science and technology that the Christians provided. And appreciate their complex stories and knowledge that helped describe the spiritual aspects of humanity and mankind's relationship with the universe and its Creator.

          The only people laughing at thor and odin in asgard are people like you. Some people are studying those stories, artwork and origins that add to the understanding of people that existed before us.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          I didn't say anything about laughing at thor and odin in asgard.

          I spoke of people in the future reading what Dalahäst and thefinisher1 and new-man write and busting up laughing at the workings of your infantile cult-addled mind(s)

          February 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sorry, laughing at people who wrote about thor and odin in asgard.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Alias

          Don't laugh too loud yet.
          The world is supposed to end this year according to Odin's followers.
          It would be safer to wait until next january before making too many jokes.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • hotairace

          Do you have a more specific date/time? It would help me to plan dinner reservations at popular restaurants if I pick a date/time after the prophesied calamity.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • Alias

          @hotair
          I'm just going to wait until I see frost giants before using all of my savings and vacation days.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
  10. hotairace

    In the picture above, who proposed to whom and did the bride say "yes"?

    February 20, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • Creationists say the darndest things

      I thought it was an invite to play ring-around-the-rosary. But based on the lack of play clothes, you must be right.

      February 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Hota,

      It is clear that if you dont have a good arguement u resort to ridicule. Pale attemp for recognition.

      Well hell o.

      Peace 🙂

      February 20, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
      • Akira

        Pea,
        Passive-aggressive much?

        Peace.

        February 20, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          There ya go. My point exactly.

          Hell o Ak.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
  11. Dyslexic doG

    You mean to tell me,
    that a Jewish zombie can make me live forever,
    if I telepathically accept him as my master…
    all because a talking snake convinced a woman created by one rib
    to eat from a magical tree?
    Really? REALLY???

    February 20, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
    • thefinisher1

      Asinine.

      February 20, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
      • hotairace

        Excellent! You are on the road to shedding your asinine childish beliefs.

        February 20, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          "Jewish Zombie". How Is that not childish? Hmm? Does atheism make you immature? Atheists NEVER point out what other atheists do but will make fun of believers? Priceless😜

          February 20, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • hotairace

          OK, what is the correct phrase for someone of Jewish heritage alleged (but never proven) to have returned from the dead?

          February 20, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Do you even know what a zombie is? The intelligence of atheists is becoming more and more on the dumb side. Atheists will use "Jewish zombie" to insult. That's it. It really shows how immature many atheists are.

          February 20, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Technically not a zombie 🙁 Sorry. He was resurrected, not the living dead.

          February 20, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Cosmic: a : of or relating to the cosmos, the extraterrestrial vastness, or the universe in contrast to the earth alone
          b : of, relating to, or concerned with abstract spiritual or metaphysical ideas

          Jewish: someone whose religion is Judaism, who is descended from Jewish people, or who participates in the culture surrounding Judaism

          Zombie: a dead person who is able to move because of magic
          (src: merriam-webster dictionary)

          The description is accurate.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • hotairace

          What did Merriam-Webster get wrong?

          zom·bie noun \ˈzäm-bē\
          : a person who moves very slowly and is not aware of what is happening especially because of being very tired

          : a dead person who is able to move because of magic according to some religions and in stories, movies, etc.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Jesus was resurrected back to full life. He wasn't moving because of magic. Unless you consider your movements as the result of magic, too?

          zombie: (n) a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, esp. in certain African and Caribbean religions.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Or

          Zombie: (n) a will-less and speechless human in the West Indies capable only of automatic movement who is held to have died and been supernaturally reanimated

          February 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • hotairace

          Allegedly resurrected to full life, allegedly, not proven.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • igaftr

          Phil Coulson was dead for a week, and brought back to full life as well. This was witnessed by MILLIONS of people.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Don't resurrections qualify as being magical?
          There is no known natural way to revive a corpse 3 days after the cessation of brain activity, therefore the source of such a resurrection would necessarily be supernatural.
          For all intents and purposes "magical" and "supernatural" are semantically equivalent.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • kevinite

          Also from Merriam Webster:

          1
          a capitalized : the rising of Christ from the dead
          b often capitalized : the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment
          c : the state of one risen from the dead
          2
          : resurgence, revival
          3
          Christian Science : a spiritualization of thought : material belief that yields to spiritual understanding
          — res·ur·rec·tion·al adjective
          See resurrection defined for English-language learners »
          See resurrection defined for kids »
          Examples of RESURRECTION

          He was enjoying the resurrection of his career.
          a resurrection of an old theory
          Origin of RESURRECTION

          Middle English resurreccioun, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin resurrection-, resurrectio act of rising from the dead, from resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again, from re- + surgere to rise — more at surge
          First Known Use: 14th century
          Related to RESURRECTION

          Synonyms
          reanimation, rebirth, regeneration, rejuvenation, rejuvenescence, renewal, resurgence, revival, resuscitation, revitalization, revivification
          Related Words
          renaissance, renascence; reinvention; reactivation; rally, recovery, recuperation; restoral, restoration

          Apparently the word zombie was not used as a related word neither is the word magic given in the definition.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I think there are some differences between magic and super-natural. Some dictionaries define them very similar. But others note some distinctions.

          So, in a loose definition, it was magic. But a more appropriate description would be supernatural.

          Now, if you don't believe in God – you would say it was magic.

          If you do, you probably say supernatural.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ....and then there are miracles.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • hotairace

          Alleged, not proven, in any case.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • hotairace

          And then there are alleged miracles. . .

          February 20, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Miracles transcend our natural and scientific laws and boundaries that confine us. People experience them. Describing them must be difficult.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "Miracles transcend our natural and scientific laws "

          Miracle = supernatural = magical
          People experience all manner of "miracles".
          There are reams of eyewtiness testimonials to the miracles performed by Joseph Smith (of Mormon fame) and Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science).
          How much credibility should they be given? Since the instances described are not testable, demonstrable or repeatable, they have just as much credibility as any other miraculous claim.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Miracles transcend our natural and scientific laws and boundaries that confine us. People experience them. Describing them must be difficult."

          Not really, I can do it in one word. 'Delusion'.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Dalahast, There are no verifiable miracles; some people make unexpected recoveries but we have no explanation for why. It doesn't mean a god did it. That's why the "regrow an amputee limb" is a good test. We would know that that is truly a miracle. Something an omnipotent being could do in the blink of an eyelid.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. Miracles are not testable, demonstrable or repeatable. That is why they are called miracles, and not ordinary.

          That's ok you don't believe. Some people do, some people don't. Some very rational, intelligent and sound minded people do believe in them.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • otoh2

          Yeah, Santa, I'd like to find out how (and to whom) starfish, lizards & axolotls 'pray' - they regenerate missing body parts to beat the band!

          February 20, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Dalahast
          The man widely considered to be Canada's greatest Prime Minister routinely conferred with the spirit of his dead dog.
          The gentle delusion did him no harm, but that doesn't mean Rover's Ghost was actually giving him political advice.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Doc

          Dyslexic doG imagines in 100 years the whole world will think like he does. Disbelief if God doesn't prevent delusional ideas.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          *Disbelief in God

          February 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Dalahast,
          Yes some people believe but there's no rational reason to believe. When you're working with After Effects and it does not produce what you want, there are basically three possible categories of problem – user error, hardware error, and software error. I'll bet you never consider a category of supernatural intervention. Why discard rationality in other areas of life?

          February 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Santa

          I think the world is a lot more complex than my relationship with a computer program I operate. That is an interesting analogy though. Almost like a parable. But not a completely rational explanation.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Some very rational, intelligent and sound minded people do believe in them."

          You are correct but that doesn't mean it isn't dishonest, dangerous and harmful.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes. I felt there was some kind of understanding that all rational people were atheists, only delusional people believe in God.

          February 20, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          That is a straw man agrument Dala,

          I said believing in supernatural miracles is delusion. I have also said believing things to be true that are not true is delusion. And I said believing in supernatural miracles is dishonest, dangerous and harmful.

          Tell the children of Herbert and Catherine Schaible that belief in miracles is not harmful....oh that's right you can't because they are dead...as a direct result of their parents believing in miracles and not medical science.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yea, they didn't demonstrate rational thinking very well. I've met non-religious people like that, too.

          Most religious people do take their children to the hospital when they get sick, not the church.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Dalahast
          Yes life can be more messy and complex but I was pointing out that you never consider supernatural intervention as the cause of AE problems (or probably vehicle problems, etc.) and use your logic and reason to determine what the problem is. In the absence of any tangible, objective evidence of supernatural intervention in other areas of life, why consider it an acceptable explanation?

          February 20, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't.

          All Christians don't just do that either. There would be no scientific discoveries or advancements from people like Christians if they just completely abandoned reason and blame the supernatural for everything.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Yea, they didn't demonstrate rational thinking very well. I've met non-religious people like that, too."

          As have I, the difference is you are promoting the very belief (miracles) as being rational and reasonable to believe. It is not, it is delusion, you are spreading lies and it is harmful. And you support a belief system that justifies delusions as reasonable. Everyone has things that they believe that are not true. Some people try and figure out where they are wrong and change their mind....you on the other hand rationalize it as either not harmful.

          "Most religious people do take their children to the hospital when they get sick, not the church."

          Exactly, and yet you disparage supporting science as if it is the same as supporting religion, when that is demonstrably not the case. Thanks for unwittingly proving my point.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. You are misunderstanding.

          A perfectly rational being can only comprehend a miracle as totally false. Sure. But that is like having a robot mind.

          A human being can understand the existance of a miracle. We aren't limited by pure logic and reason. And that is actually a good thing. This world is not purely logical or reasonable.

          If something happens you can't comprehend, that doesn't make it false.

          "Most religious people do take their children to the hospital when they get sick, not the church."

          The hospital was probably founded by Christians, who definitely supported science. Not disparaged it. As Christians today continue to support, finance and appreciate science. But they don't think science answers all the questions man needs to know.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "If something happens you can't comprehend, that doesn't make it false."

          Absolutely correct, the right answer in that case is "We don't know". The correct answer is NOT to claim you know what the cause was...a miracle from god. You don't know...I don't know. I don't claim to know. People that claim the cause was a miracle are claiming to know an answer that they don't really know and that is dishonest and harmful.

          "Most religious people do take their children to the hospital when they get sick, not the church."

          "But they don't think science answers all the questions man needs to know."

          Science doesn't have all the answers, but the answers they do have can be demonstrated, they aren't made up answers like religious "answers".

          And quit inferring that I don't think religious people aren't smart or can't do science. I think they are smart, and I think they can do science very well. But their contrabution to the world is the science and has nothing to do with their religion. Just because someone is intelligent and religious does not make their religious views valid.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
  12. Dyslexic doG

    God. The one who loves you so much, that he created hell in case you don't love him back... LOL

    February 20, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
    • thefinisher1

      Incorrect. God didn't create hell for humans. It was created for Satan and the fallen angels...atheists spread more lies than Christians do. How asinine of you doggy!😜😃😀😄😊😜

      February 20, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        SO god didn't know he would need to use hell for humans? So much for his omniscience...

        February 20, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
    • new-man

      All mankind will ultimately go back through the passage way at the east of the garden of Eden where the fiery sword and the cherubim are. If we seek the Lord now and are baptized in fire, we become single eyed and our body is set on a path that leads to transfiguration and our body becomes full of light. On the other hand, those that dawdle and remain two eyed will continue on their merry way until the end of this age is rolled up like a scroll. Then, the procrastinators will be forced to take the only passage out which is through the fire. What is for us the baptism of fire, becomes a "hell fire" for them as they are suddenly forced to face their own carnality. For if we seek the Lord now, the refining process is a more gradual one and when it is completed, we will welcome rather than dread the end of this age. But, in any case, the objective of the process
      is to free man from his carnality, not to destroy him. For it is the carnality that is to be burned up root and branch.

      MAT 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

      MAL 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be
      stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
      2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and
      grow up as calves of the stall.

      February 20, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
      • igaftr

        You'll never get into Valhalls with talk like that.

        February 20, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Dx,

      You sound like a spoiled brat. How would you develop ur morality if there are no consequences? Amazing.

      Peace

      February 20, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
      • igaftr

        the same way animals have developed morality. Since we are also animals, part of our instincts include what has been passed down from our animal ancestros.
        There is still no link between morality and gods.
        Considering you have to do an immoral act in order to accept Christ, all of christianity is immoral....or is it somehow moral to allow another to take your punishment?

        February 20, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Iga,

          Here you go with animals again. I admire your admiration for animals and their development period.

          Our ancestors who were made aware of the existence of God and thus develop their morality.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
      • doobzz

        It's called empathy. It's something that most people learn as young children. Also known as the golden rule. No deity is required.

        February 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doo,

          Emphathy is derived from the belief in what is moral. What is God. Example, our emphathy would be different if we do not have morals or God, we probably think killing humans is justified.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • doobzz

          Wrong. No deity is needed for a person to feel empathy for another.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
      • Akira

        How did you delevelop yours? Through fear tactics?

        February 20, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Ak,

          As i said before, i developed my belief, my morality based on the account and testimonies in the life of Jesus not because of salvation and damnation. For others, salvation and damnation is necessary to believe the need for morality, otherwise, they would simply live life without morals.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • hotairace

          And for many others, some called atheists, they don't need the voodoo of a Jewish zombie or the threats of damnation to be moral.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Ak,

          i developed my belief, my morality based on the account and testimonies in the life of Jesus not because of salvation and damnation. For others, salvation and damnation is necessary to believe the need for morality, otherwise, they would simply live life without morals.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        and stop saying "peace" at the end of your posts after you've just displayed an atti.tude of anything but peace.

        you may think you are a wit but you are only half right.

        February 20, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Dx,

          I cant advocate peace coz of my at:ttude. Coz i am rude? Being rude is the same as being blunt. I dont see anything wrong with that, however, if it pls u, forgive me. I think peace is a message worth advocating even coming from a sinner like me.

          Peace be with you.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • hotairace

          You are only a sinner because you are currently a member of the dead jew zombie cannibal vampire death cult, and you've allowed its charlatan shamans to corrupt your thinking. A good first step to regaining rational thought is to throw The Babble in the garbage.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Infinite punishment for finite crimes is not just or moral...how would anyone learn morality from a god who acted in such a way?

        February 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          It is a pleasure to see you here, we had a bit of discussion in the past aand i treasure it.

          Infinite punishment. God gave us all the time to believe but we choice not to. Like forgiving humans if they have sinned with no remorse, no repentance. God wishes to separate the good from the bad. To have all the good in one basket and achieve things we only dream of. The perfect world. No wars, no famine, or other ills we see in this world.

          I think im falling for an atheist 🙂

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          Peaceadvocate2014,
          Why would God make good and bad if we are all from him?
          Don't you ever get the feeling that this "God" of yours is the most "evil" movie psychopath?

          February 20, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Basing rewards and punishments on "belief" is not "just" or moral either. Beliefs are not "choices". Information is presented and a person bases their belief on whether or not the conclusion fits the information presented. I can no more believe a god is real than I can believe pixies are responsable for gravity and any god that would punish or reward based on "belief" insn't worthy of my respect. And that is in a nut shell why the CHristian world view is foundationally flawed.

          February 20, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Common,

          God made humans but did not create some to be good or bad. Good or bad is the creation of humans. Our development of moral applications. Some may be more advanced than others, in the context of morality. Why God did not make all good people. God could, god has the power but this not about Gods power but humans ability to determine what is right, what is moral.

          Peace

          February 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Blessed,

          I find it "just" or moral. Even is we have sinned, like i do, there is forgiveness provided there is a sincere remorse or repentance. For the non believers, i acknowledge some are doing the right things, being good, being moral, repenting for sins may consider accepting them into salvation. I would. But if you believe in God and understand God teachings the consideration is unessesary.

          The choice presented before us humans is between right or wrong, good or bad. I am pertaining to my belief.

          Punishment, reward is needed for or development of our morals.

          Peace

          February 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
      • commonsensed01

        Also, anthropology, psychology, scientific study of theological history and other sciences continue to show us that religion is not the source of man's morality. But you probably don't belief much in that "science stuff" when it knocks the wind out of your Biblical sails.

        February 20, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Common,

          Science have its achivements. However, science could also be used for their own self interest like religion, manipulated. Scientists are humans corruptible. Not perfect. Example, what is the smallest particle, atom but is now challeged. Google science mistakes.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          Science (and most scientists) are not afraid to acknowledge new information. The atomic particles of electron, neutron and proton were believed to be the smallest particles until atomic science came in to being. Quantum physics was born and what a tangled mess of wondrous discoveries it is!
          The more we seem to learn, the more there seems to be to learn. But to point to the Bible and say "God did it." shows a childish lack of curiosity about the universe we live in. The church was willing to kill people to protect the earth centric universe. Science is open to any theory that makes sense and can hold up to experimentation, chemical, nuclear and other properties and mathematics. There are plenty of "believers" out there who still refute the heliocentric solar system.

          February 24, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Common,

          It may look childish to you but eventually i hope you'll understand why. I have a hard time believing our existence is without purpose or our purpose is mainly to survive. Very primitive.

          Peace

          February 27, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
  13. bostontola

    The Los Angeles Archdiocese has settled what officials said is the last of its pending priest molestation lawsuits, bringing to a close a decade of wrenching abuse litigation that cost the Catholic Church more than $740 million.

    Attorneys for the men alleged in court papers that Mahony and his top aide, Msgr. Thomas Curry, had "actively thwarted" and "misled" Los Angeles Police Department investigators at the time.

    Aguilar-Rivera was 46 in 1987 when he came asking to serve Los Angeles, saying he needed to be away from his home diocese of Tehuacan, Mexico, for family and health reasons. When two families came forward with allegations of the priest's abuses in early 1988, Curry met with the priest and informed him of the charges.

    "I told him that it was likely the accusations would be reported to the police and that he was in a good deal of danger," he wrote in a memo at the time.

    The priest, Curry wrote, said he would leave for Mexico. By the time police were notified by a school principal at one of the parishes two days later, Aguilar-Rivera had left the country.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-archdiocese-settlement-20140219,0,3112522.story#ixzz2tsYzTUkI

    February 20, 2014 at 11:12 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Boston,

      Child abusers should be punished. All child abuser. But to use this story to discredit an inst:tution is wrong. Separate the sins of humans from the message of the inst:tution if we are going to be fair.

      Peace

      February 20, 2014 at 11:18 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        @PeaceAdvocate
        The problem is an inst/itutional one.
        In 1962, The Vatican relased the 'Crimen Sollicitationis', which outlined how the church is to handle accusations of se.xual impropriety against clergy.
        The stickiest point for most people is that not only was the doc.ument itself Top Secret for decades, it explictly stated that anybody involved in this type of investigation, including the accuser and potential witnesses, are sworn to secrecy regarding any and all details, upon penalty of excommunication (a fate worse than death for the devout).
        This preoccupation with secrecy significantly slowed the investigative process – the backlog of referrals to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for action against se.xually abusive priests is so large that it takes 18 months to get a reply.
        According to the John Jay report, 918 of 1872 (49%) substantiated allegations of abuse against Catholic clergy were addressed by sending the priest off for psychiatric counseling and then moving him to another parish, with nary a whisper to law enforcement. This number does not include priests relocated for reasons other than charges of se.xual impropriety.
        The Vatican has demonstrated that their pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child se.xual abuse have been the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its as.sets.

        February 20, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doc,

          I understand completely. Leaders of any inst:tution, govt, etc are humans capable of sins, imperfect. I am not depending the actions of this leaders. Like i said, jesus challeged his chruch and got crucified by his own people. It is right to challeged illegitimate authority. But like i also said separate the sins of humans from the message of the inst:tution. The right message is from God. Humans just have a way of justifying any actions or anything to be right.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • igaftr

        When this inst!tution continues to cover up the abuse, and continues to sheild the offenders, they ARE sending a message, and that message is that while they harbor criminals that harm children, they are above the law.

        That message will continue to overshadow all other messages until they give full disclosure and assist with prosecution, not for just the abusers, but for those who obstructed justice, and harbored criminals.

        February 20, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Iga,

          That is why we elect uncorruptible leaders. Like the election of Barak O. I think Pope Francis background and examples would encourage change. Some may argue well he was elected to appease the folks who has discontent in the Vatican. It may. But let us support it and continue the strugle to get things right.

          Initially all inst:tutions intent is for the well being of people but coz of our evil tendencies it erodes that intent. The Vatican, why theres a bank, why there are abuses. We have to see if Pope Francis does to guide us and instill in everyone, including us, to change our ways. For our moral development. Change does not come overnight. As you could see in our history. Change is slow but should not be abandoned. Patience is a virtue. We'll get there, we hope.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          peace
          "Initially all inst:tutions intent is for the well being of people"

          We'll just have to disagree there. Also, just because people think something is for the well being of people, does not mean it actually is.
          Hitler believed that killing the jews and creating the master race was for the well being of everyone else. Didn't work out so well.

          The RCC has a very checkered history as well, including some very, very sick popes.
          Intent has little bearing on results.

          February 20, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Iga,

          I agree. Some inst:tutions intent for the well being not actually is. That is why we change its leadership if not revisit or reform that inst:tutions. It would not be entirely in the hands of the inst:tutions but in our hands. What we do. We challeged what is wrong and support what is right. Our development.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • joey3467

          The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Anybody in the Catholic Church who knew about the abuses and didn't inform the police should be put in jail.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Alias

          I've always hated that saying.
          If there is a road to hell, it is definately not paved with thought from people who want to do the right thing.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • joey3467

          Yes, it is pretty dumb. It just shows the Christian mindset that nobody can ever do anything good, which is completely absurd.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Joey,

          Not just the catholic chrich nit to all.

          Peace

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

        Peace,
        You assumed a lot. I actually made no comment at all, I merely reprinted a report from the LA Times. Just facts.

        Now a comment: There is a lot of objective evidence revealed in these cases that the RCC leadership through multiple different leaders across decades had an explicit plan to cover up abuses and stonewall police. Some cases like this one are worse, the leaders purposefully misled police to allow a criminal to escape.

        Churches are supposed to lead. The first tenet of leadership is to lead by example. The RCC is an abject failure at moral leadership. Fact.

        Regards,
        bostontola

        February 20, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Boston,

          I did not assume. I made a statement to clarify your post.

          You say it is not an attack but facts. Its may be true. I was not there like the accounts in the bible. But let us attack one particular inst:tution, lets challeged all. It gives the impression that you may have vested interest in challenging RCC.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • bostontola

          Many insti.tutions are corrupt. On other blogs I go after them. This is the belief blog.

          Corruption comes from power. Any insti.tution that is powerful will have some degree of corruption (like you said, humans are human, and insti.tutions are made up of humans). The only antidote of this is separation of power. The US Consti.tution and BoR is a great example of this. It isn't perfect, but it limits corruption to a manageable level. Churches are composed of a rigid hierarchy, like a medieval Monarchy. The exact opposite of what we know can resist corruption. The results are predictable and in fact have obtained.

          This contrasts with science. It has the ultimate distribution of power. Any scientist can find the flaw in someone elses work and take it down. That is why science has been so successful for 500 years.

          February 20, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Boston,

          Since this is a belief blog, posts, comments or replies should consider all beliefs all religion. The media have this tendencies to attack a particular inst:tution that is in the way of other powerful inst:turtion. Why? To sell stories. Even worst for propaganda. Its all.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Boston,

          Just to add on your science comment, science is good but morality is even better. God is morality.

          Romans empire was in power for 500 yrs as well and now it is still remembered for their embrace in the belief in God.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Historians generally consider the apex of the Roman Empire, both politically and socially, to be around 100 CE when it was still a polytheistic civilization.
          The empire didn't begin to be "Christianized" until about 200 years later. Less than two centuries after that, the empire collapsed.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And how exactly is God morality? Most of the old moral guidelines were tossed out when the Torah's sequel was published.
          The primary ethical list is hardly universal. The first several commandments are self-serving (from God's perspective), taking a day off once a week is good advice but hardly universal.

          Morality is a covenant by and for people that enables us to live together.
          e are selfish creatures by nature, yet our survival depends on cooperation. In order to balance these two conflicting instincts, mankind has had to develop rules that allow room for both.
          These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
          Religion binds communities by giving a common frame of reference.
          Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.
          Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doc,

          Like i said doc, change is slow but should not be abandoned. Humans dont change overnight. Example, had 3 speeding tickets 🙂 keep ot in the downlow

          February 20, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • joey3467

          The Roman Empire lasted a lot more than 500 years, and fell apart fairly quickly after making Christianity the official religion of the Empire.

          February 20, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • bostontola

          Peace,
          The insti.tutions of your God are immoral and corrupt. I see that remaining the same due to the rigid power structure as described.

          Now, how about your God?
          If your God's proposition were; Love me and you'll receive eternal love in return, don't love me and you'll cease to exist at death, then that would be a reasonable proposition from an all powerful agent.

          That is not the deal from your purported God. Your God levies an eternal pain tax if you don't love him. He also created us with variability in our characteristics (including our susceptibility to believe) and created us to be very imperfect. The uneven playing field with an infinite penalty is immoral.

          Summarizing: Your insti.tutions for God are immoral by being staffed by humans and in a rigid power structure. Your god is immoral by the definition of its proposition to humans in it's bible.

          Regards,
          bostontola

          February 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • joey3467

          Not to mention that it is completely immoral to let someone else take your punishment.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • bostontola

          joey,
          Or condone slavery, subjugate women, punish 4 generations of a transgressor, and on and on.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doc,

          Exellent question, why God is morality?
          Old moral guilines were tossed maybe because it was flawed. Meaning not the actual guidelines set by God but by humans for their own self interest. Torah sequel or most literature or textual reference are made by humans. It may have flaws in it and left is up to us to determine what is moral. Example of humam behavior, if we see somebody great at something we want to emulate them. If we see this in humans say power, we want to be powerful too. But what how do we use that power? I hope its guided with morals. That is our state today, although we have evil tendecies. We try to emulate God as a perfect being. If we do that we should have perfect morals too.

          Development of rules. How do we develop theses rules? Guided with morals? Belief in a perfect being, perfect morals, God.

          Religion established by humans are both divisive and destructive. God did not say call urself catholics, christians, jews, muslims, buddhist, whatever. God only wish is for us to believe.

          Salvation and damnation is irrelevant to non believers. The choice to believe is based on the account testimonies in the life of jesus and our experiences in life not because of salvation or damnation.

          Its true for our suvival we have to cooperate but what are we cooperating for? Cooperating to eliminate a race? To destroy the planet? To cast out indifferent beings? The cooperation should be based on morals as i stated above.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • bostontola

          Peace,
          I don't find the morals defined by your God perfect at all. There are many moral flaws in the definition of your God in the bible.

          On the other hand, science has found the roots of our morals in lower social animals. Apes, whales, elephants, etc display consistent moral behavior. Our morals are more developed because of our much larger and complex social units. These were all developed by evolution. Social animals out competed solitary animals. Rules for living in social units developed, better rules helped those groups out compete groups with inferior rules (morals).

          February 20, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Why do we cooperate? To survive.
          As individuals, humans are prey animals. We are devoid of inbuild offensive or defensive capabilities. It is only our intelligence that puts us on top of the food chain – and even then, it is primarily as a group, not as individuals.
          Hence, evolution has favoured the development of communities – but not only those bound by religion.
          There are examples of societal ideals based on principles other than Gods, such as the completely godless Code of Hammurabi.
          We instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group. Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive.
          But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
          Look at the arguments on this board and see how many people cite Pascal's Wager as their reason for faith.
          Religion, like people, has evolved based on the laws of Darwinian evolution in that different environments have brought about different religions.
          Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion. Not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily sectarian and divisive.
          In the 21st century we have numerous examples of irreligious governments running successful societies, like Ja/pan, Switzerland and my home, Canada.
          Some of our elected officials may be religious, but we expect them to act as Humanists, not religionists.
          The Journal of Religion & Society published a study on religious belief and social well-being, comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand.
          #1 on the list in both atheism and good behaviour is Ja.pan. It is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation. Over eighty percent of the population accept evolution.
          Last on the list is the U.S. It has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Ja.pan.
          Countries with a high percentage of nonbelievers are among the freest, most stable, best-educated, and healthiest nations on earth. When nations are ranked according to a human-development index, which measures such factors as life expectancy, literacy rates, and educational attainment, the five highest-ranked countries - Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands - all have high degrees of nonbelief. Of the fifty countires at the bottom of the index, all are intensly religious. The nations with the highest homicide rates tend to be more religious; those with the greatest levels of gender equality are the least religious.

          Belief in the supernatural is not required to live a life of charity, compassion, and humility.

          February 20, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Boston,

          God is immoral? How did you come up with this conclusion? Could you state why God is immoral? Just curious, please educate me.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • joey3467

          Here is a good place to start as to why god is immoral: Is killing moral or immoral? Right it is immoral so god can't be moral when In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • joey3467

          And that doesn't even take into account god murdering every man woman and child on the face of the Earth in a flood.

          February 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • bostontola

          Peace,
          You asked:God is immoral? How did you come up with this conclusion? Could you state why God is immoral? Just curious, please educate me.

          You must have missed this post to you just above yours:
          bostontola

          Peace,
          The insti.tutions of your God are immoral and corrupt. I see that remaining the same due to the rigid power structure as described.

          Now, how about your God?
          If your God's proposition were; Love me and you'll receive eternal love in return, don't love me and you'll cease to exist at death, then that would be a reasonable proposition from an all powerful agent.

          That is not the deal from your purported God. Your God levies an eternal pain tax if you don't love him. He also created us with variability in our characteristics (including our susceptibility to believe) and created us to be very imperfect. The uneven playing field with an infinite penalty is immoral.

          Summarizing: Your insti.tutions for God are immoral by being staffed by humans and in a rigid power structure. Your god is immoral by the definition of its proposition to humans in it's bible.

          Regards,
          bostontola
          February 20, 2014 at 1:59 pm |

          February 20, 2014 at 5:31 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          On the atheistic naturalistic view, morality doesn't actually exist. It's just personal opinion or personal taste. As Richard Dawkins has said, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

          February 20, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doc,

          We cooperate to survive PERIOD? Sounds like a prehistoric caveman mentality. That is proven to be ineffective if you consider the survival of everybody instead of just your own. Governing Dynamics by John Nash. Of course he could be wrong but i find it to be right.

          Peace

          February 21, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Boston,

          The inst:tution and power structure of what you believe of my God were created by humans. Corruptible humans like you and me.

          Gods main proposition is not to love God but to believe in God. Gods teachings. There is a difference. Gods teaching is to love one another. Damnation written in the bible in revelations of apostle john when he was jailed by the romans before he was crucified
          upside down. I do not fully understand it because i am not a theologian nor a scientist. Johns revelations were horrific events would destroy humanity. Those who believe would not perish in the hands of God but in the hands of non believers. Those non believers would perish in the hands of God. A much horrific suffering. Eventually believers would rise and be accepted by God while non believers would suffer through eternity.

          God created us in our own unique way to deveop on our own our moral applications. Determine for ourselves what is right. Think for ourselves. The belif in God is a choice and in my opinion having a belief would make it easier for us to understand to determine what is right.

          I respect your point. I hope someday you understand mine.

          Peace

          February 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        we are all born as atheists

        the abuse comes when parents and priests brainwash children with bronze age fairy stories and the threat of eternal fire and torment if they don't believe.

        So when you say "all child abusers should be punished" you are saying "all Christians should be punished!"

        February 20, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Dx,

          You are confusing guidance from a demand. Against ones free will. I did not understand the beliefs my parents had until i was in school. I had a lot of questions, i did not believe but i learned to think for myself. What i learned is to believe.

          Peace

          February 20, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
  14. Dyslexic doG

    every time a Christian tells a non Christian that unless they believe the same thing as the Christian, no matter how fanciful, their beliefs, no matter the lack of ANY proof, that they will go to a nasty magical place of fire and pain and torment that no-one really even knows where it is or has ever even seen or has any proof even exists except for in a bronze age book of fairy tales, they are insulting them and threatening them.

    christians do this A LOT!

    February 20, 2014 at 10:20 am |
    • bostontola

      True, good thing these are empty threats.

      February 20, 2014 at 11:14 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Dx,

      What you see are human behavior, traditions, rituals, etc.

      The guidance are not threats. Its a choice.

      Peace

      February 20, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        The skeptic tells themself that they won't follow Stalin because he sends people to the Gulag.
        What they fail to uinderstand is that Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
        It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise atti/tudes and counter-revolutionary actions.
        This was not Stalin's plan at all.
        He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker's Paradise and it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him.
        But he will not force anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes.
        He respects their free will.
        If you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the love of Stalin.

        Sound familiar at all?

        February 20, 2014 at 11:33 am |
      • doobzz

        "Love me or I'll punish you eternally" is not guidance. It's abuse.

        February 20, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • commonsensed01

          doobzz: And is much like the rantings of an immature 10 year old isn't it?

          February 20, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • doobzz

          More like an abusive spouse.

          February 20, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
  15. derado8

    When a person insults someone they sent the message that they believe their opinion is more important than the psychological well being of the person they are insulting.

    The insulter also sends the message that they also feel their own opinion ranks above social courtesy.

    Lastly, the insulter sends the message that they believe in spite of the above two messages that the insulted should still consider their opinion.

    February 20, 2014 at 9:03 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      What fun is being a religious leader if you don't get to belittle others and condemn this and that from a fiery pulpit, smugly assured of your superior righteousness as one of God's favoured children?

      February 20, 2014 at 9:08 am |
      • doobzz

        The really fun part is doing all that, and then watching them throw money at you for it.

        February 20, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
    • derado8

      Our brains are all hard wired to look for potential threats, real or imagined.

      February 20, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
  16. Son of Sharecroppers

    In fact, Pope Francis did not call journalists "fomenters of coprophagia." He did say that they risk becoming fomenters of coprophagia–but that's a very different thing. But perhaps Mr. England enjoys the description and wishes to mantle himself in it.

    February 20, 2014 at 1:19 am |
    • Akira

      Mr. England sounds as if he guilty of some of the behaviors Pope Francis described, and is taking umbrage at being called out on it.

      February 20, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
  17. derado8

    Insults are just another attempt at persuasion.

    February 20, 2014 at 12:56 am |
  18. kyzaadrao

    "I felt inspired by conversations with members of the clergy to compile a compendium of papal invective, calling it, tongue firmly in cheek, “The Pope Francis Little Book of Insults.”".

    Which tells me you learned nothing from either Pope on the virtues you claim to be knowledgeable of. You merely used it as a springboard to get to the juicy bits.

    February 20, 2014 at 12:10 am |
  19. joeyy1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_F9nIps46w
    .

    February 19, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
    • Doris

      Good heavens – please go to Walmart and buy a few chords....

      February 19, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
  20. Reality

    "Speaking of media, Pope Francis hasn’t left journalists out of the fun. In a recent address, he called them “fomenters of coprophagia!”

    Speaking of media, Pope Francis hasn't left journalists out of the fun, In a recent address, he called "fomenters of a symptom of some kinds of insanity."

    Meaning:

    Eating feces; in human a symptom of some kinds of insanity

    February 19, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
    • derado8

      Or in a metaphoric perspective the average work day for some of us.

      February 20, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
1 2 3 4
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.