home
RSS
Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions
Pope Francis speaks at St Peter's square on December 11, 2013.
March 5th, 2014
10:04 AM ET

Pope Francis: Church could support civil unions

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.

The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Seraan Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.

A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples as an alternative to marriage, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Times.

Behind closed doors, pope supported civil unions in Argentina, activist says

But Wednesday's comments are "the first time a Pope has indicated even tentative acceptance of civil unions," according to Catholic News Service.

Later on Wednesday, a Vatican spokesman sought to clarify the Pope's remarks.

"The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions," said the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a consultant to the Vatican press office.

"In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens."

"We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words than what has been stated in very general terms," Rosica added.

Pope Francis, who marks his first year in office on March 13, has sought to set a more tolerant tone for his 1 billion-member church and suggested that a broad range of topics are at least open for discussion.

In January, the Pope recalled a little girl in Buenos Aires who told her teacher that she was sad because "my mother's girlfriend doesn't like me."

"The situation in which we live now provides us with new challenges which sometimes are difficult for us to understand," the Pope told leaders of religious orders, adding that the church "must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them."

The Vatican later denied that those comments signaled an opening toward same-sex unions.

Last June, Francis famously refused to judge gay priests in comments that ricocheted around the world. He has also said that the church should not "interfere" in the spiritual lives of gays and lesbians.

Pope Francis' greatest hits of 2013

Support of same-sex unions of any type is fiercely contested by many Catholic church leaders.

In Wednesday's interview, Francis also addressed several other controversial issues, including the Catholic Church's ban on contraception, the role of women and the devastating clergy sexual abuse scandal.

On contraception, the Pope praised Pope Paul VI for having the "courage" to "go against the majority" when restating the ban in 1968. But, Francis said, the church must also be "merciful" and "attentive to concrete situations."

Contraception and church's ban on divorced Catholics receiving holy communion, will likely be addressed at major meetings of Catholic bishops in Rome in 2014 and 2015.

“We must give a response. But to do so, we must reflect much in depth,” the Pope said Wednesday.

On the role of women in the church, an issue of particular concern to Catholics in the United States, the Pope hinted that changes could be in the works.

"Women must be present in all of the places where decisions are taken," Francis said in the newspaper interview, but the church must consider more than "functional" roles for women. To that end, Catholic leaders are engaged in "deep reflection" on women's role in the church, he said.

On the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy, a scandal that has rocked the church in the United States, the Pope said the abuse has left "very deep wounds" on victims.

In response, the church has done more than other institutions to be open and transparent about sexual abuse by its employees, Francis said. “But the Church is the only one to be attacked."

A United Nations panel criticized Catholic leaders last month in a hard-hitting report on clergy sexual abuse.

The report said the Vatican "has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by and the impunity of the perpetrators.”

The Vatican said it would study the U.N. report.

Kick out those who sexually abuse children, U.N. panel tells Vatican

On Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who has surprised church-watchers with public appearances after saying he would live a cloistered life in retirement, Francis said he considers his predecessor a "wise grandfather."

"The Pope Emeritus is not a statue in a museum," Pope Francis said. Rather, the two men have decided that Benedict should participate in the church's public life rather than live a shuttered life.

"I thought about grandparents who with their wisdom, their advice, strengthen families and don't deserve to end up in an old folks home," Francis said.

Finally, he may sometimes wear a cape, but don't call Pope Francis a Superman, the popular pontiff said.

"To paint the Pope as a sort of Superman, a kind of star, seems offensive to me," Francis told Corriere della Sera. "The Pope is a man who laughs, cries, sleeps soundly and has friends like everyone else. A normal person."

Earlier this year, graffiti depicting a muscle-bound and flying Francis appeared on walls near Vatican City, but the Pope said Wednesday that he doesn't like the "mythology" surrounding his papacy, which marks its first anniversary on March 13.

For instance, Francis debunked the idea that he sneaks out of the Vatican at night to feed the homeless.

"It never occurred to me," he said.

(CNN's Delia Gallagher assisted in translating Pope Francis' remarks from the Italian.) 

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Catholic Church • Christianity • Culture wars • Discrimination • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Pope Benedict XVI • Pope Francis • Vatican

soundoff (3,591 Responses)
  1. Vic

    There is a lot of confusion going on here.

    Here is the thing:

    Christianity DOES NOT condone sin in any way or fashion, rather, Christianity provides the "Remission of Sins" through the "Precious Blood" of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's what Jesus Christ died for, our sins.

    As Christians, we don not condone sin; meanwhile, we are NOT to judge NOR condemn anyone, that's God's prerogative. We believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and to witness to Him, the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven.

    I posted the following a while back out of conviction:

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/25/who-is-on-gods-side-of-the-marriage-debate/comment-page-6/#comment-2243330

    March 12, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I take this to mean that you are for the gov't supporting gay marriage correct?

      March 12, 2014 at 11:41 am |
      • Vic

        I am all for Equal Rights.

        Meanwhile, I elect for leaving the word "marriage" alone, and I agree with the Pope on this stance, we all can support "civil unions."

        March 12, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • joey3467

          Not really, North Carolina banned them as well as marriage for gays.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • the0g0to0the0t

          I can see where you are coming from Vic, but "separate but equal" is not a respectable solution in my mind.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          So "equal" means treating people differently under the law.

          Don't get me wrong Vic I think it is far better than some Christians who would like to legislate against gays and even imprison them. But it reminds me of Orwells Animal Farm

          "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

          March 12, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          You do know that marriage licences are issued by the state with various terms in order to qualify. Churches love weddings/marriages because it is a very profitable side line. Marriages are civil unions in this country, thus the required licence. a rose by any other name...

          March 12, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • Akira

          Sorry.
          Christians, indeed, religiouns, can not claim ownership of the word 'marriage'.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • ausphor

          Akira
          I seem to be on Vic's naughty list, no response. Do you know if there is a different licence issued to a hetro couple married by a JP than a gay couple married under the exact same ceremony by a JP? I suppose it could depend on whether they are in a backward state or not.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • kudlak

          Vic
          Did Christians invent marriage? No, it existed in older cultures and was endorsed by other gods long before Jesus was even born. There is no legal argument that you can make towards Christians having the sole right to dictate who can get married.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • Akira

          To my knowledge, those that are enlightened enough to permit gay marriage issue the same marriage licenses for both types of marriages.
          I an unsure if the license for a civil ceremony is different from a marriage license, even though getting married at a courthouse IS a civil ceremony...

          I was married once in a church and once in a courthouse. The license from my state was exactly the same for both.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • Akira

          Although I can imagine some courthouse civil servant pursing her lips in disapproval and crossing out the word "marriage" and writing in "civil ceremony" in crayon while tut-tuting under her breath...

          March 12, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • ausphor

          Akira
          Thanks. I kind of guessed they would be the same marriage licence. Just trying to get Vic to admit that the language doesn't matter, but it is hard to pin down the likes of Vic.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • Akira

          He is a Teue Believer™, ausphor. And that's fine as long as he doesn't stand in the way of a person's liberty and equal rights.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • sam stone

          You don't get to define what others call it, vic

          March 12, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • observernow

          Vic,

          Which definition of "marriage" do you support? The Bible says that marriage can be FORCED onto people. It says that it can be a penalty for r@pe. It says that it can be determined by a slave owner. It says that it can be between sister and murderous brother.

          Is the Bible's versions of marriage the same as yours?

          March 12, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          Separate is not equal. Jim Crow taught us that.
          Marriage is not the sole dominion of religion. Say it all you want, but it's not. Marriage is a contract recognized by the government and afforded certain rights.
          Besides, isn't the Catholic word for marriage "holy matrimony"? (A rhetorical question as I know for a fact this is the case.)
          Keep your regressive religion out of the government.

          March 12, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Vic, you may want to try convincing your fellow evangelicals of what you just said. Currently, they lead the world in turning people off from Christianity.

      March 12, 2014 at 11:44 am |
      • Vic

        I am a "middle of the road" Christian Protestant, a moderate.

        March 12, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • joey3467

          I would not describe you as a moderate.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • joey3467

      How is calling someone a sinner, not judging them?

      March 12, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • Vic

        Here is what Apostle Paul said:

        1 Timothy 1:15

        "15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." King James Version (KJV)

        March 12, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • joey3467

          That doesn't answer my question. If you call someone a sinner then you have judged them to be a sinner. I don't how you calling someone else a sinner is not judging them. Now, you may be correct that they are a sinner, but you have judged them, and I don't see any way around that.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • Vic

          Not exactly.

          We acknowledge sin and that all men are inherently sinners; that's not passing judgement.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • Akira

          Fantastic! Women get a pass!

          March 12, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • joey3467

          Then you will have to explain to me how calling someone a sinner is not judging them.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • kudlak

          Vic
          Everyone is human, and you can argue that everyone occasionally does something that harms others, but who actually gets harmed by gay marriage? God? Well, you'd have to make a legal argument proving that he even exists before the law can rule that he's being harmed. Then you'd have to make a convincing argument that his rights trump those of the gay couple's.

          Do you think that these things are possible?

          March 12, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • Vic

          Here is the thing:

          While as Christians we believe that Scriptures are "Special Revelation" from God, we also believe that the "Rules of Nature" are but a "Natural Revelation" from God.

          The rule in nature is that marriage is between a male and a female, otherwise, it is an exception to the rule. Most people on earth, throughout the ages, and regardless of personal convictions, perceive marriage as between a male and a female, naturally.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          nature: 1. the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

          "Ho mos e xual behavior in animals is s e xual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as ho mos e xual or bis e xual. This may include s e xual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-s e x animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom. As of 1999, nearly 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in same-s e x behaviors; this is well doc u mented in about 500 species."

          So by definition ho m o s e x ual behavior is in fact, natural.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • joey3467

          Marriage was invented by humans. I can't think of any animals that hold ceremonies and get married. So if you are going to go with what is natural, marriage wouldn't fit the bill.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • Akira

          Nah. The rule is "marry whom you love and let me marry whom I love. No harm, no foul."

          And don't being up the slippery slope nonsense, either.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          As any drunk will tell you water is the gateway drink to whiskey... oh what a slippery slope...

          March 12, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
    • doobzz

      "Christianity DOES NOT condone sin in any way or fashion, rather, Christianity provides the "Remission of Sins" through the "Precious Blood" of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's what Jesus Christ died for, our sins."

      What primitive, vicious beliefs – human sacrifice to appease a deity.

      March 12, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • meatheist

      "we are NOT to judge NOR condemn anyone", so: I take it that you have no stance on child molesters and murderers. They can "sin" and "sin" again after being forgiven? As an atheist I cannot swallow that one.

      March 12, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • Vic

        That's for the Law of the Land but not an issue of Salvation.

        The Holy Bible condones and teaches adherence to the Law of the Land.

        March 12, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
    • Vic

      My daily praise:

      ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

      March 12, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
      • sam stone

        Not to everybody, Vic

        March 12, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
    • kudlak

      Vic
      Yet, you have a choice not to agree with God's judgment upon others, right? Hitler may have been the one who judged that Jews didn't deserve to live, but that doesn't stop us from not looking favourably upon the Germans who idolized him. People with actual empathy towards their fellow man see problems with God's judgment. The ones who remain Christian simply care more about the promise of their salvation than their fellow man.

      If you look at the example of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, it doesn't matter that God supposedly stayed his hand. Abraham was fully willing to do it, which means that he believed that his God would actually want this to be done. He could have said "Sorry, but my God is a loving, good God, and he would never order me to do such an evil thing. You are not my God", ut he didn't, which tells me that he didn't see human sacrifice as something that God didn't like.

      March 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
  2. bostontola

    Why do some religious people try to cloak their belief in rationality?

    Many forms of belief are rational. I believe I can cross a public bridge without personally reviewing the loads analysis. I trust the public processes of review. I have good reason to believe and trust, there is an objective track record, not perfect, but extremely good. In fact, almost all people lay extreme trust in technology, perhaps without even recognizing it, that's how deep that trust is.

    Belief in God is anyone's right, but it is not rational. There is no objective evidence for it. That is not a bad thing, I bet almost every person harbors some irrational belief. There is nothing wrong with that as long as no action based on that belief is taken that harms another. So why do religious people have this "Rationalist Envy"? Just enjoy your belief in God and recognize it just is, it doesn't have to be rational, it's yours and you like it.

    March 12, 2014 at 11:30 am |
  3. Doc Vestibule

    Another example of what happens when God talks to people.
    Ebony Wilkinson tried to kill her three children by driving into the Atlantic ocean.
    According to her sister with whom she was staying, she had been rambling about talking to Jesus just prior to driving off with her children and claimed that there were "demons in her house".
    Fortunately for her children, a number of passersby heard the kids' desperate pleas for help and rescued them.

    Remember kiddees: if you hear God's voice or suspect demonic influence, it's time to check with your local psych ward to see if you need a huggy jacket.

    March 12, 2014 at 10:18 am |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      Thats what happens if you dont have proper guidance. We should not wait for God to talk to us to tell us what to do but we act according to the teachings of God.

      March 12, 2014 at 10:24 am |
      • igaftr

        What "teachings of god" are you referring to...all I see is men making up stuff and claiming it is from god.

        March 12, 2014 at 10:51 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Iga,

          That is for us to find out.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • igaftr

          advocate
          Lame.
          You don't know if there are any gods, so you do not know if there is anything to "find out"

          Is it part of the religious indoctrination that they teach all of you guys to tap dance around direct questions?

          March 13, 2014 at 8:56 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        You act according to the teachings of god, so you support slavery; forcing rape victims to marry their attacker; sparing the rod; women being silent???

        March 12, 2014 at 10:52 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Such blasphemous words!
          Well you must now atone.
          Just call up God now on this prayermaphone
          Tell him you're sorry! With sin you are done
          And you're happy to offer the life of your son
          Sometimes God asks of you crazetompulous things
          Like whipping your back with a whip that has rings
          But as my old preacher each Sunday would say
          As the ti/thing-o-grabber came over my way
          "Don't question the Lord, boy! Just shut up and pay."

          – Saint Geisel of Seuss

          March 12, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Truth,

          If that is what you believe , its wrong. It is not gods teaching but the abuse or sins of humans.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Wrong!! It is written in that book that you hold so dear. Maybe if you read it with an open mind you'd see it for what it is but in doing so would mean that you would likely leave the belief system. That book is apparently your gods word, so yes your god gets the blame!

          March 12, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Truth,

          U funny, apparently you dont know my beliefs. All you know is the wrong doings, sins created by humans who happen to believe in a God.

          If you read all my posts you could understand my position in the belief of one God. How i derived this conclusion and how i interpret the bible.

          What u mentioned are sins of humans not God. The written text by humans may have errors because humans are flawed. God is morality. If you start with this and intepret the bible being God as morality you may have an understanding in the teachings of God.

          So pls stop with the aha moment and argue your case.

          March 12, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Peace: Sin is not pertinent outside of your bible. Now is the bible the word of god or not??
          It is rather disgusting that you think so little of your fellow man...to think we're all fallen is a sad way to view things.

          March 12, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • doobzz

          "The written text by humans may have errors because humans are flawed."

          So the bible isn't perfect? Really?

          March 12, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
      • colin31714

        So she should have tried to drown her children before hearing the voice og God??

        March 12, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Collin,

          If she understood the teaching of God, she would not drown her kids.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • Akira

          Why not? God did.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • colin31714

          That made me laugh out loud. but, you are right!

          March 12, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Akira,

          What is her purpose? Is it to advance morality? Then she may be God 🙂

          March 12, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        All manner of people claim to have had conversations with God.
        Some people say they do it on a daily basis!
        Since nobody has a device capable of intercepting and decoding divine, psychic messages, nobody can say whether this woman's communication with God was any more or less credible than when God told Abraham to kill his son.

        March 12, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Doc,

          Youtalk to God by praying. God does not talk back but rather walk the walk.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • joey3467

          Since there is no way to prove that god didn't order her to drown her kids I just have to take her word for it. Or we have to believe that anybody who says god told them to do something good is also crazy.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Joey,

          If somebody says God talked to them, give them the benefit of the doubt and find out what the message of God is. If the message is moral then it may be true. It is for us to determine that. If the message is to kill then that is not God talking.

          March 12, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
        • doobzz

          "God does not talk back but rather walk the walk."

          What a bunch of nonsense. Greeting card platitudes.

          March 12, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        @Peaceadvocate2014,
        How do you know that she wasn't acting according to the teachings of God, I.e. the voices she heard?

        March 12, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Mid,

          Because killing is not a teaching of God where others would like to believe.

          March 12, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Pea,
          "Because killing is not a teaching of God where others would like to believe."

          1) How do you know that God wasn't actually speaking to her and that your book is less than accurate?
          2) Apparently your book disagrees with you. Didn't Yahweh order the deaths of more than one nation, let alone one person? not to mention personally committing genocide, via floods etc.

          March 12, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          peace, What did god command Abraham to do to Isaac? What did god do to Lot's wife? What did god do to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah? What did god do to Er? What did god do to Uzzah? This list is too long and it doesn't include all life on earth with a few exceptions in the flood, the Egyptian army, etc.

          March 12, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
  4. onthebeech

    All this bantering back and forth... Not on one page of the Bible will you find an allowance for Psame-s3x marriage. God only joined male and female.

    End of discussion.

    March 12, 2014 at 10:12 am |
    • midwest rail

      That's WONderful ! Now show me where it says that in the Consti.tution.

      March 12, 2014 at 10:17 am |
      • onthebeech

        When my life is over, I won't be answering to a politician...

        March 12, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          No, you'll be worm food as we all will.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:03 am |
        • midwest rail

          Indeed, none of us will answer to a politician when our life is over. In this life, however, we are a nation of laws enacted by man. We are not now, nor were we ever intended to be, a theocracy of ANY kind.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Nope. You'll have to answer to Odin if you want to get to Valhalla.
          Or perhaps the 42 judges of the Egyptian afterlife.
          Maybe you'll meet Joseph Smith and need to offer him the secret handshakes and passwords in order to get to highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.
          Maybe St. Peter will review your sins in his book.
          So many afterlife judges, and each one with different criteria for getting to their respective afterlives.
          They can't all be correct – but they can certainly all be wrong.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Nope, it'll be something to the tune of this: ♪♪The worms crawl in the worms crawl out, the bug play pinnacle on your snout.♪♪
          No evidence for anything more after this life, best make the best of it while you are guaranteed of it and stop wasting it for something that there is no evidence for.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • onthebeech

          I won't be answering to St. Peter either...

          March 12, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          onthebeech: The fact is you won't be answering to anyone...you'll be dead.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • onthebeech

          TP: Not so. I'm on my second life. God will be right there after you breathe your last...

          March 12, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          onthebeech: LIAR!!!! One life foolish gullible child, nothing more!

          March 12, 2014 at 11:45 am |
        • onthebeech

          TP: Child Of The King! That's no lie.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:05 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Which King of the Gods? Odin or Zeus?
          Or maybe you mean King Haile Selassie, the 2nd Coming of Christ to Rastas...

          March 12, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • onthebeech

          TP: Father, Son (Jesus), Holy Spirit. A Christian.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          onthebeech: Ah, do you feel special??? How cute! Your belief does not apply to everyone nor can you force it upon anyone. You have only existed once and unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, then you stating otherwise is a blatant lie.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • Akira

          Charlie Manson? How did you get access to the net from prison?

          March 12, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • onthebeech

          TP: I have purpose, as any Christian. That alone is special.
          My belief is: God created all.
          You can't force anyone to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior –work of the Holy Spirit.
          I am still existing in the same body. It's the mind and soul that has been transformed. I'm a Messenger with a book. God speaks and I listen and take note. That's proof enough for me.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Peaceadvocate2014

      True but we should be tolerant to this illness or something intoduced to our society. Compassion. Teachings of God.

      March 12, 2014 at 10:19 am |
      • igaftr

        What illness?
        H0m04exuality is not an illness any more than hetero$exuality is an illness.

        You try to claim to be an advocate of peace , then continue to push your vile book.
        there will be no peace as long as people keep believing in ridiculous myths.

        March 12, 2014 at 10:39 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Iga,

          So you probably think it was introduced to our society. It may or may not ne an illness depending on your belief.

          Lets go further, say a union between a human and an animal is introduced. A man and a dog or a womam and a cat. Say a union between a human and an object. Human and money. Is it an illness?

          Gods teaching is still to be tolerant and show compassion. Goes without saying you have to be sincere about it.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • joey3467

          If you actually want to show tolerance and compassion then stop telling gay people that they have an illness, as that is neither compassionate or tolerant.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Joey,

          By saying it is an illness, it is not a popular thing to say. It offend gay people thinking its their fault, their parents, ancestors or societies fault but it may be true. It is not to degrade gays but look at ourselves see if we are partly to blame. Instead of diverting blame to God or have science prove its not our fault. Again, coz its convinient to blame others, its our culture.

          How do you define gays? Is it being soft spoken? Skinny? Single? Undesirable to the opposite s.ex? Acceptability? Non-violent? If so, you do have to azzume to be a girl just coz you are born differently. Vice versa.

          We have differences at birth. Human nature. Some say these differences are inequilities but we have to tolerate our inequalities for a better future.

          March 12, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " How do you define gays? Is it being soft spoken? Skinny? Single? Undesirable to the opposite s.ex? Acceptability? Non-violent? If so, you do have to azzume to be a girl just coz you are born differently. Vice versa."
          Is it really possible for a human being to be this ill-informed in the information age ? Good grief.

          March 12, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
        • igaftr

          advocate
          "So you probably think it was introduced to our society. It may or may not ne an illness depending on your belief."

          Now you are just lying. H0m0$exuality is NOT an illness.

          You claim to be an advocate of peace, yet you continue to say one inflammatory thing after another...you are more an agent of chaos, while claiming to be peaceful. Stop lying, or get an education so that you can see what you have said is a lie.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:00 am |
      • SeaVik

        You don't get to claim to be compassionate after you call h0mos.exuality an illness! Believing in things for which there is no evidence is much closer to an actual mental illness.

        March 12, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Sea,

          Being blunt or rude does not mean i dont show compassion. Its sickness not a crime. Compassion may be shown by not persecuting h0mos.exuallity which i dont.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • joey3467

          By saying that you are showing compassion by not persecuting them you have set the bar pretty low.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Joey,

          Tough love. Have u heard the concept? Too much love is not good. We have tendency to get spoiled.

          Too much of anything is bad for you. Including religion.

          March 12, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • igaftr

          advocate
          " Compassion may be shown by not persecuting h0mos.exuallity which i dont."

          Now you are just lying as you label H0m0$exuality an illness, and you think that is NOT persecuting?

          Drop the "peace" act. You sow the seeds of discontent and claim you are for peace.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:05 am |
      • sam stone

        which illness is that, peace? the delusion that you speak for god?

        March 12, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          The delusion that we dont need Morality.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • joey3467

          We certainly don't need a morality that allows for genocide in certain cases a/k/a Christian morality.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • sam stone

          i have morality, peaceadvocate.

          March 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • sam stone

          also, peaceadvocate, "morality" need not be capitalized

          March 12, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
      • Akira

        Uh huh. We should be compassionate; bigots who haven't a clue about what they're talking about are people, too.

        Is willfull blindness an illness?

        March 12, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Sincerity akira sincerity.

          Cant lie to God. God would know.

          March 12, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
        • Peaceadvocate2014

          Read thread above.

          March 12, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. "
      – Deuteronomy 7:3

      The Bible is against interracial marriage and yet it is no longer illegal.
      Isn't it a good thing we don't use the Bible to make laws?

      The current condemnation of ho/mo/se/xuality will be viewed by the next generation with the same sense of shame that the memory of segregation elicits.

      March 12, 2014 at 10:28 am |
    • igaftr

      Good thing no gods are needed to get married then.

      March 12, 2014 at 10:55 am |
    • bostontola

      "End of discussion."

      And that's why I want no part of absolutist religion.

      March 12, 2014 at 11:08 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      "End of discussion."

      Not at all!! Christianity doesn't own marriage.
      -Marriage ceremonies have been performed in one way or another long before man imagined and wrote about the christian god. Pagans held similar ceremonies that can be defined as marriage.
      -A marriage is not legal unless a license issued by the government is place and no church is required for this.

      March 12, 2014 at 11:17 am |
      • onthebeech

        And God's truth teaches male + female.

        March 12, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • joey3467

          If anyone ever gets around to proving that "God" exists then you might have a point.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Your god is your god, not the god of everyone and your god doesn't have pertinence is a Secular country. Get over it, christians are losing the battle!

          March 12, 2014 at 11:44 am |
    • Akira

      Lol. You sound like one of the fine Christians in this Onion article:

      http://www.theonion.com/articles/closeminded-man-not-even-willing-to-hear-out-argum,35379/

      March 12, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • bostontola

        Gotta love the Onion.

        “Even when I bring up something basic that most informed people agree on—like how a man who lies down with another man is condemned to eternal hellfire—he just shakes his head.”

        Pure gold.

        March 12, 2014 at 11:33 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "Not on one page of the Bible will you find an allowance for Psame-s3x marriage."

      I CAN find allowences for r@pe, incest, slavery, bigotry and genocide though....so I don't trust the Bible to be right about gay marriage either.

      March 12, 2014 at 11:50 am |
    • myweightinwords

      1) Our laws are not defined by the bible.
      2) The bible is a collection of stories about a society that lived in a different era
      3) The bible offers many, many definitions of what marriage is, not one.
      4) There have been same-gender marriages/relationships in many ancient cultures.
      5) Equality is a basic human right.
      6) Love is love. Genitalia does not define love.

      March 12, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
  5. Doris

    truthfollower01: "Paul's teachings ARE God's teachings."

    This of course shed's some light on the conflicted nature of Christianity. Many Christians don't agree on this point. Some will say it doesn't matter so much because the "majors" [to use Russ' expression] are in common to all Christians (belief in the resurrection, blah blah blah). But it's not the "majors" that cause pain and suffering at the hands of many Christians in the world, is it? It's not the "majors" that cause some Christians to jail and kill gays in the world today, is it? It's not the "majors" that cause some Christians to promote death by disease by having an unrealistic stance on contraception in the world today, is it?

    March 12, 2014 at 9:24 am |
  6. Blessed are the Cheesemakers

    you did not answer the question...If morality is dependent on situations what exactly makes them objective?

    Is this question too hard for you TF?

    March 12, 2014 at 2:20 am |
    • truthfollower01

      Blessed, the problem is is that are making the universal assumption up front that all genocide is morally wrong. This is a misunderstanding on your part. I was simply showing that in certain cases (I.e. Noah's flood), the act is morally right. Noah's flood is objectively morally right in that it cannot be morally wrong. It's not subjective.

      March 12, 2014 at 2:24 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        First that is a non answer. I didn't ask if Noah's flood was justified (which I already addressed and you ignored that as well).

        I asked what makes situational morality "objective"? Apparently this question IS too hard for you...

        At least you have admitted genocide can be "good" and "just" in your world view...you have just used the same rational that suicide bombers use....god = moral = any action can be justified.

        March 12, 2014 at 2:39 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed, morality is objective if it is valid and binding, independent of human opinion.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          But you in no way can demonstrate that your morality is "valid" or "binding" or "independent from human opinion". You just "say so"....and I don't find that the least bit impressive.

          It is itself based on a subjective religious view that cannot be traced to anything outside of humanity short of you "proclaiming" it to be so. Your justification for morality is no different than the suicide bomber.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          FORTUNATELY, current morality does not depend on the Bible and the many inhumane examples of things God did to people.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
      • Doris

        LOL. TF: a fine example of when logic gets too tough, just put your blinders on and keep repeating yourself. "This is the way it is and don't ask too many questions – it makes me go poopy!"

        March 12, 2014 at 9:07 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        "Blessed, the problem is is that are making the universal assumption up front that all genocide is morally wrong."

        Yeah, that is a big assuption to make...let's see...can I think of a situation where all people of a certian ethnicity could deserve to be systematically erased....hmmmm....nope.

        And if your world view allows for genocide in certain situations....that is a "you" problem....not a "me" problem.

        March 12, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • truthfollower01

          On atheism, there is no real moral good or evil so I can't see what the problem is on the atheist view.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Yes, because atheism is nothing more than a response to the question "do you believe in a god". So "atheism" is by its nature without morals. The atheist has to come to his own moral structure. And I can say my moral structure is apparently superior to your "Christian" view that "genocide can be moral".

          AND you still did not answer the question as to how situational morality is "objective"?

          March 12, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed,

          "And I can say my moral structure is apparently superior to your "Christian" view that "genocide can be moral".

          Actually, on atheism, your moral structure is no less or more superior than anyone else's, including Hitlers.

          March 12, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          False. Morality is most commonly measured by harm to a person or group. Hitler's morality caused great harm to many people. If my or anyone else's moral structure would not allow for that, then it is by definition superior.
          Learn what you're talking about before you spout off nonsense.

          March 12, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Hawaii,

          "False. Morality is most commonly measured by harm to a person or group."

          On atheism, who says this is how morality is most commonly measured?

          "Hitler's morality caused great harm to many people."

          On atheism, why is this morally wrong?

          "If my or anyone else's moral structure would not allow for that, then it is by definition superior."

          On atheism, why is your moral structure superior? Why isn't Hitler's moral structure superior?

          The truth of the matter is that on atheism, morality is just a game of "Says who?"

          March 12, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          Congratulations on once again being unwilling to actually address points.
          Is this the game you've chosen? Play the "repeat myself over and over and over until people say I'm right"?
          Pathetic.

          March 12, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          My moral structure is comparable to Hitler?

          Ummm...remember YOU are the one arguing genocide is moral depending on the situation...not me.

          Oh and is that the best you have? When your argument is trounced you pull out Hitler? You need to get a better argument....or better yet....get a better sytem of morals.

          March 12, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
      • Akira

        In other words, ego oxide is morally wrong unless GOD does it. That's what you're trying to say, isn't it?

        March 12, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • Akira

          Lol. Ego oxide? DYAC!

          March 12, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I will bite Akira..

          What is ego oxide?

          March 12, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
        • Akira

          A particularly bad autocorrect of genocide. Dumb phone!

          March 12, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Ohhh...That's funny.

          But not as funny as watching the "good CHristian" truthfollower argue genocide can be justified as moral...LOL

          March 12, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Goodnight all! Sorry to go but gotta get up early.

      March 12, 2014 at 2:26 am |
      • observernow

        truthfollower01,

        Get some sleep and study the Bible so that tomorrow you might actually be able and willing to answer questions.

        March 12, 2014 at 2:28 am |
      • Dalahäst

        Good night, thanks for talking. Peace be with you.

        March 12, 2014 at 2:28 am |
  7. observernow

    truthfollower01,

    Jesus was asked what the MOST IMPORTANT COMMANDMENT was.

    He mentioned several. Which did Jesus NOT CONSIDER as one of the most important commandments?

    (1) The Golden Rule
    (2) Prohibition against s3xual activities for heteros (adultery)
    (3) Prohibition against s3xual activities by gays?

    March 12, 2014 at 2:09 am |
    • kevinite

      Which second hand source are you referring to? The written through scribe based from the gospels or through apostles and prophets coming from revelation? Either way one source would be consider no better or worse than the other source.

      March 12, 2014 at 3:10 am |
      • observernow

        I'm referring to the actual words in the Bible. The Bible's source is irrelevant here. If readers don't trust their book, it isn't my problem.

        March 12, 2014 at 3:27 am |
        • kevinite

          36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

          37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

          38 This is the first and great commandment.

          39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

          40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

          (Matthew 22:36-40)

          March 12, 2014 at 4:31 am |
        • kevinite

          Since all the law and the prophets were hung on those two commandments, what makes one certain that Jesus ever actually condoned same gender relations? Especially since there is nothing in the gospels that ever said that Jesus ever condoned same gender relations?

          March 12, 2014 at 4:36 am |
        • kevinite

          The Old Testament certainly picked a side on the issue, the earliest known New Testament writings, the Pauline epistles certainly picked a side on the issue, even Jude the brother of Jesus picked a side on the issue. Although there is nothing in the gospels giving specifics about the issue , that in of itself does not mean that Jesus never had a viewpoint regarding the issue. After all can you really conclude for certain that every thing that Jesus taught in his three year ministry is contained in the gospels?

          March 12, 2014 at 4:42 am |
        • kevinite

          Since all the law and the prophets according to Jesus were important to him, what makes one certain that the commandments regarding same gender relations were not important to Jesus?

          March 12, 2014 at 4:47 am |
        • observernow

          kevinite,

          The answer is (3).

          (Matt. 19:17-19) “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

          March 12, 2014 at 7:23 am |
        • kevinite

          Where do you think answer three as well as fulfilling any of the commandments is for? It all ultimiately is a manifestation of the two greatest commandments, which is to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself and answer three fits right into that.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • kevinite

          Another key point in your answer three about not committing adultery. Why would you think that having same gender relations does not fit into the criteria of not committing adultery?

          March 12, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
  8. observernow

    truthfollower01,

    When it comes to gays, why do you CHOOSE negative verses that were NEVER MENTIONED by Jesus instead of CHOOSING the FAR MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule strongly endorsed by Jesus?

    Sure sounds "anti-Christ".

    March 12, 2014 at 1:22 am |
    • truthfollower01

      Observer, you seem to have an incorrect view of Scripture. All scripture is God-breathed. This is indicated in 2 Timothy 3:16. Paul's writings were from God. To reject Paul's writings is not just to reject Paul, but it is to reject God Himself.

      March 12, 2014 at 1:37 am |
      • observernow

        truthfollower01,

        Sorry you missed the question. Here it is again. Please TRY to answer it.

        When it comes to gays, why do you CHOOSE negative verses that were NEVER MENTIONED by Jesus instead of CHOOSING the FAR MORE IMPORTANT Golden Rule strongly endorsed by Jesus?

        March 12, 2014 at 1:44 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I don't think you understood my answer if you thought I missed it. Paul's teachings ARE God's teachings. So whether Paul's letters or The words of Jesus, the teachings are God's.

          Also, Jesus does stress that a marriage is between husband and wife as it has been from the beginning of creation. Matthew 19:4-7 – And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

          March 12, 2014 at 1:56 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          Do you UNDERSTAND that Jesus was God's son and infallible and Paul was JUST A FALLIBLE man? Shouldn't be too hard to comprehend.

          So you CHOOSE Paul over Jesus. You CHOOSE to ignore what Jesus said and didn't say so that you can support bigotry with Paul's words.

          Why don't you CHOOSE what Jesus said?

          March 12, 2014 at 2:04 am |
        • Dalahäst

          What if God wants you to love the h.mos.xuals? Jesus described the good Samaritan that loved the beaten man that the religious leaders refused to love. Isn't that how he wants us to love others? The Samaritans were despised by a lot of Jews. I think one could make an interesting comparison between right-wing fundamentalists as the religious leaders and the h.mos.xuals as the Samaritan.

          Jesus was always upsetting the religious leaders by associating with the "wrong people".

          March 12, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01

          "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

          So do you support the idea that there should be NO DIVORCES ever?

          Do you support getting the laws changed to outlaw divorce?

          March 12, 2014 at 2:13 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Not at all trying to be rude but your last post shows a complete misunderstanding of Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 indicates that all Scripture is God-breathed. The writers of Scripture weren't merely giving their opinions on a variety of topics. They were writing exactly what God wanted them to write as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. That's why I say that Paul's teachings ARE God's teachings. So whether Paul's letters or the words of Jesus, the teachings are God's. Paul and Jesus's teachings are not at odds with one another. Paul had a great concern for others. Paul even said, "3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others." (Philippians 2:3,4) NIV

          March 12, 2014 at 2:15 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Scripture does give allowance for divorce under adultery and if a married unbeliever wants to leave the married believer, the believer is to let the unbeliever go.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:20 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          Do you agree with God/Jesus/Paul that men and women shouldn't have s3x?

          Do you agree with God/Jesus/Paul that marriage should be just for those who can't control themselves?

          March 12, 2014 at 2:21 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01

          "Scripture does give allowance for divorce under adultery"

          Didn't you read your own quote from Jesus?: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

          March 12, 2014 at 2:24 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Jesus said nothing about h.mos.xuality.

          But he did say a lot about divorce. Boy, did he.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:27 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst

          And it was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce"; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchasti.ty, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:31-32

          So, that would be no fault divorce that Jesus was opposed to, not all divorce, right?

          March 12, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • joey3467

          He seems to be saying that unless your spouse cheated on you then you shouldn't get a divorce.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • kudlak

          joey3467
          Well, if she did cheat, it would often never come to divorce because some crowd would start picking up rocks, right?

          March 13, 2014 at 10:01 am |
      • Dalahäst

        Not everyone who disagrees with you is rejecting Paul's writing.

        They are just rejecting your understanding of Paul's writing.

        But also, what about Jesus' commandment to love others? And not to judge, because you have sinned yourself?

        Do you ultimately follow Paul or Jesus? Are you a Paulite or a Christian? Does Paul or Jesus save you?

        March 12, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I don't think it is difficult at all to understand Paul's teaching on the matter of hom-ose-xuality. It's very clear. Now that doesn't mean that people like what he is saying and won't try to alter its meaning.

          The Christian is too love others and to have a love for the lost, who need a Savior. This certainly doesn't mean that we affirm the world's lifestyle as okay. Going into the world as witnesses to reach the lost is a loving act.

          Christians including myself follow Jesus. However, Paul’s teachings ARE God’s teachings. So whether Paul’s letters or the words of Jesus, the teachings are God’s.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:05 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No, it is not very clear. Any attempt to say it is clear and simple seems to be missing the point. Especially in regards to the message of Romans. You are giving a very American conservative understanding. Not all Christians who love and follow God agree with you. You might be wrong about what Paul is saying.

          "Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American Christians, and the Bible is not theirs alone to interpret. The same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to action.

          The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson used to keep white churches white is the source of the inspiration of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960’s.

          The same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.

          And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all h.mos.xuals and h.mos.xual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love – principles that invite h.mos.xuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well. "

          March 12, 2014 at 2:13 am |
        • observernow

          Paul on slavery:

          I Timothy 6:1 “All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor”

          Yep. Even those that God says can beat their slaves with rods without any punishment.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:17 am |
        • truthfollower01

          One more post on the night.
          Answer a few questions for me if you would.
          1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
          2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
          3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
          4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
          If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and follow Jesus as Lord. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.

          March 12, 2014 at 2:36 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          Answers:

          (1) VERY few. I couldn't even figure out a year for the last one. I HATE lying.
          (2) Never.
          (3) Never out loud
          (4) All the time.

          Now I've answered all your questions, maybe tomorrow you can ANSWER some of mine. Sound fair?

          March 12, 2014 at 2:58 am |
        • kudlak

          Let's not forget that Paul really doesn't favour marriage for anyone. He, like every Christian, mistakenly believed that the end times would come during his own life time, so there wasn't any need to sacramental inst.itutions like marriage. He seems to be of the position that everyone's attention should be solely focused on Faith and the End.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • joey3467

          Since it appears that most scholars don't even think Paul wrote Second Timothy, you aren't basing your beliefs on Paul or Jesus. In fact you don't even know who you are basing your beliefs on.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:47 am |
      • kudlak

        truthfollower01
        In Galatians 1, wasn't the "other gospel" that Paul was warning about not that of James, the brother of Jesus, who was teaching that one had to an observant Jew to be a Christian? This calls into question who would be the more reliable source of Jesus' actual teaching: his brother who was in a position to know what he actually taught, or a former persecutor of Christians, who never met Jesus in life, but claimed to have received direct revelation that James, Paul and the rest all had it wrong?

        March 12, 2014 at 10:18 am |
      • colin31714

        You realize that Paul of Tarsus (or Saint Paul, if you prefer) never wrote 2 Timothy, right? Second Timothy is almost universally accepted by biblical scholars as being written pseudepigraphically under his name well after Paul was dead.

        March 12, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
  9. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    Thank you Lord Jesus Christ for the Gift of Salvation.

    March 12, 2014 at 12:33 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Thank you Jesus for forcing me to be born into this fallen world so that I MIGHT have a chance at being "salva.ged" through your "sacrifice" and thereby creating a loophole to get around your own rule.

      Whatta guy..!!!

      March 12, 2014 at 2:15 am |
    • kudlak

      Vic
      There are some strings attached to this "gift" though, right? It's not a free gift; you have to jump through a bunch of hoops in order to access this salvation. To say that God "saves" people really butchers our idea of what a saviour is. Do we have to love and praise individual firefighters before they decide to rescue us? Your God demands payment of faith in him before he supposedly rescues us from a fate that he could just make disappear altogether. That's why it's ridiculous to call this a "gift".

      March 12, 2014 at 10:29 am |
  10. observernow

    Salero21,

    The ONLY "compulsive pathological LIAR" here is YOU. Don't be such an IDIOT that you call people liars when you are CLUELESS.

    The "sin of Sodom" was GREED. The source for that quote was GOD.

    Is God an unreliable source? Liar? Which are you calling God?

    OOOOOOOOPS!

    March 11, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
  11. Salero21

    More Evidence of the gross immorality of Idolaters. Nothing new under the sun.

    Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

    March 11, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
    • Reality

      No, no, no, please no more Sodom and Gomorrah biblical tall tales !!! Your vengeful god never existed other than in the minds of some very inventive, "Stephen King- like" Jewish scribes.

      March 11, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
      • observernow

        Reality,

        He's just another real/fake Christian who hasn't read the Bible enough to know that the "sin of Sodom" was GREED.

        March 11, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
        • Salero21

          Your extreme hypocrisy, compulsive and pathological lying on top of your obvious ignorance of Scripture is obvious. Read bellow ↓↓

          March 11, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
      • Salero21

        Read more below. 😉 ↓↓

        March 11, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • Salero21

          Atheists idolaters et al are extremely hypocritical and compulsive pathological liars.

          Their ignorance of the Scriptures Not surprising. Hom-ose-xual-s and their friends usually appeal to one single text in the Bible. Which they try to use to support their asinine idea that the sin instead of the sins in plural, of the sodomites was not hom-ose-xua-lity. The only way to pretend to do that is to completely ignore the rest of the Bible and the other Texts that clearly point to their Main Sin. And to attempt to change the meaning of certain words like wicked. The Bible is Clear however and the rest of the Texts do not allow for such charlatanism.

          Gen. 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord.

          Gen. 18:20 and the Lord said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.

          Gen. 19:4,5
          4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;
          5 and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
          Is. 3:9 The expression of their faces bears witness against them, and they display their sin like Sodom; They do not [even] conceal [it.] woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves.

          The new Testament is more explicit about the relationship between Idolatry and this perversion of hom-ose-xua-lity.
          Rom. 1;23-27 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
          23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
          24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
          25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
          26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
          27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

          March 11, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
    • kdostaingive1973

      After been without work for 6 months, I started freelancing over this site and with a little effort I easily bring in around $65 to $95 per/h! Without any doubt, it's the easiest and most financially rewarding job I've ever had. It changed my life for the better and now I couldn't be happier. This is what I do... Jobs29.com

      March 11, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
    • the0g0to0the0t

      "More Evidence of the gross immorality of Idolaters." Yeah I hate American Idol fans too. Losers...

      March 13, 2014 at 9:13 pm |
      • Doris

        LOL

        March 13, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      There has never been any sense in replying to a Salero post. He will never engage you honestly, and anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a liar/idolator/evil/stupid.
      He's either a pathetic troll or a pathetic person, either way, not worth engaging.

      March 13, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
  12. Drew

    Pope Francis reminds us of the great commandment given by Jesus which Vic has posted below.

    Also, this pope reminds us of

    Matthew 25:
    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    March 11, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • ausphor

      Drew
      That is better, relate the verses to the topic, explain that to Vic. Ridiculous but much better.

      March 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
    • igaftr

      How sad you need the pope to remind you and a book to tell you to be kind and giving.

      March 11, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Not everyone can be as naturally awesome as you. I blame evolution for creating people that need a book to be taught how to be kind and giving. It is not their fault. How did you learn to be kind and giving? Do you think you demonstrate how to be kind and giving on this blog? Or do you just point out that others aren't as kind and giving for superior reasons like yours?

        March 11, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • igaftr

          Don't you have a dance recital to get to?

          March 12, 2014 at 7:48 am |
    • Reality

      Au Contraire !! Said passages based on thorough and rigorous historic testing fail as being authentic.

      To wit:

      Professor Gerd Luedemann [Jesus, 236f]:

      :This concluding text of Jesus' eschatological discourse fits Matthaean theology seamlessly. After the paraenesis in 24.32-25.30 the judgment by the Son of Man is depicted in a great painting. The judgment is of all human beings, but Matthew has his community in particular in view: cf. 13.37-43,49-50. In view of this similarity we must seriously consider whether the whole passage should be regarded as a Matthaean construction.

      Professor John P. Meier of Notre Dame

      "When commenting on the use of phylake (prison) in Matt 11:2, Meier [Marginal Jew II,198] notes that "the whole passage depicting the last judgment is either a Matthean creation or heavily redacted by Matthew."

      Professor JD Crossan: http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb425.html

      A single attestation found no where else in the NT and therefore historically nil.

      March 11, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
  13. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    Matthew 22:37-39
    "37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’"

    John 13:34
    "34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (NASB)

    March 11, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
    • joey3467

      Quotes from the Bible are meaningless.

      March 11, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
      • Vic

        This is a "Belief" blog. To everyone their own.

        March 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • Drew

          Exactly!

          March 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          Couldn't you at least try to relate to the subject matter of the article presented on the blog? Simply posting bible verses day after day that don't relate to the topic is the same as trying to hand out religious pamphlets to the public, irritating to say the least.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • joey3467

          If you really believe to each their own, then you should stop trying to convert people to your religion and leave them alone.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • Drew

          How is it that you don't complain about the troll 'Doris' or 'Colin' that irritate people by posting lengthy drivel?

          March 11, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is quite logical and rational to see a Bible quote on a Belief Blog.

          Duh.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "How is it that you don't complain about the troll 'Doris' or 'Colin' that irritate people by posting lengthy drivel?"

          It is called a "double standard".

          March 11, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • joey3467

          while you may not agree with what Doris or Colin post, the vast majority of their posts do have a point. However, Vic's posting of two random Bible verses without some sort of discussion about them seems to have no point whatsoever. All Vic needs to do is explain why he posted these two verse and the problem is solved.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Damn, I've seen other atheists admit that their posts border on the line of spam. Dyslexic doG is probably the worst at it, and I've seen a few hostile atheists ignore his posts, while hypocritically pointing out someone else's. It is ok to criticize the faults of atheists. Even your fellow atheists.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Dala – hypocrisy and dishonesty know no boundaries. I wish they did. Then there would be fewer bad examples set here.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Drew

          "while you may not agree with what Doris or Colin post, the vast majority of their posts do have a point. "

          –There is nothing to agree or disagree about those posts, they are just drivel and those posts have nothing to do with the original article that is posted here.

          –On the other hand, this is a blog entry about the pope and 'Vic' is spot on with the scripture verses that he has quoted as it relates to this pope.Be prepared to see quotes from the Holy Bible.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • Vic

          Referencing the above two passages from the Holy Bible is my way of politely saying "Do Not Hate."

          I see a lot of negative posting against Christianity all over the CNN Belief Blog – thank you Drew for a great example – for no reason.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          midwest rail

          Welcome to the internet! 🙂

          March 11, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • midwest rail

          I am all too aware of internet pitfalls, Dala. Witnessing said hypocrisy and outright dishonesty from the believers' side of the aisle is disheartening.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Drew: The same could be asked of you: How is it that you don't complain about the troll 'Vic' or 'Austin' that irritate people by posting lengthy drivel?

          March 11, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala..
          You are the self proclaimed Christian, did you read the verses? So why do you continue to rage against atheists, or anyone else that does not believe as you do, read the verses again then read your posts?

          March 11, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is disheartening. I don't care what side of the rail it is emerging from. It all has its roots in the same source, believer or not.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ausphor

          .
          + You are the self proclaimed Christian, did you read the verses?

          Yes.

          + So why do you continue to rage against atheists, or anyone else that does not believe as you do, read the verses again then read your posts?

          I love atheists. I don't rage against atheists. I just disagree with some. And some I disagree with are not atheists.

          Why do you rage against Christians, or anyone else that does not believe as you do?

          March 11, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          Negative posts against Christianity have a reason, a secular nation should not have its government influenced by religion any religion, catch up.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • Drew

          Vic, That was a great scripture verse you have quoted here, this pope is striving to set an example by following the great commandment.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Dala – I said "aisle", you said "rail". Message ?

          March 11, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, I meant to say what term you used (I should have said aisle).. I used the wrong analogy.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          I rage against Christianity because they would turn this nation into a theocracy if given their way. Deny all you want and say your brand would not, I would agree with that, but over all Christians want their belief system imposed on others.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • midwest rail

          ok, was just curious.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          This nation is predominately composed of Christians who do not want a theocracy.

          A small minority seem to think they do want one. I'm against a theocracy. I like our system that is in place. A lot of Christians actually support it, too.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ausphor

          You seem to be imposing your beliefs on others. So you are kind of like a Christian by your own standards?

          March 11, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • Vic

          Thank you Drew. God bless you.

          Referencing the above two passages was totally inspired by this very article, which you clearly pinpointed how, and I felt it applies to every matter when it comes to human relationships, especially, when we are faced with a severe smear campaign like the one that goes on here by many posters.

          The best example for us is the example of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who Is Love.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Quite right, perhaps I overstated my case, active imagination. But you do have to agree the amount of times Christian issues have had to be decided in the Supreme Court, abortion, gay marriage, evolution vs. creationism (maybe not at the level of that court), you get the idea.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          If you mean that I "impose" the rule of the laws of the land, sorry I do not dictate those laws, the people and their elected representatives do that. Where do you live WV?

          March 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sure. Me being a Christian doesn't mean that I support such lawsuits. I doubt most atheists on this blog support all the actions of groups like the American Atheists and some of their lawsuits.

          March 11, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          + If you mean that I "impose" the rule of the laws of the land, sorry I do not dictate those laws, the people and their elected representatives do that. Where do you live WV?

          No I don't mean that. But we do live in a democracy, so inevitably somebody will feel as though others beliefs are imposed on them. I'm often on the side of the minority and have to deal with that. Ranting at Christians won't fix that.

          I mean you try an impose your beliefs onto me and others. It doesn't work. But it seems you try very hard to.

          March 11, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dalla...
          Again you chose to distance yourself from what some Christians attempt to do, understanding what I have learned from the beliefs of your particular denomination I would agree with you. But do not be in denial of what the diverse Christian lobby would like to force on the government, you know if you are willing to see. What can a deist force on government that is not already there, obeying our laws?

          March 11, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
        • Drew

          Vic-Agree with you.

          God bless you as well.

          Keep on keeping on!

          🙂

          March 11, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not all Christians do what you claim. Lobbying? My church lobbies for equal work and marriage rights for gays. We lobby for the elimination of high interest rates (400+%) charged by loan companies that target low income citizens. One of the main companies that run those loan companies is based in my city. They hate us.

          March 11, 2014 at 5:19 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Jesus, it always comes back to you and what your denomination does, I think it is one of the better ones and encourage them to continue their good works. But you continue to deny the big tent of Christianity with all the back biting that goes on, just look at Rainer's poste, pure bigotry and a spin off of Lutheranism. Not all atheists are raving lunatics, most do not give a damn what anyone believes, the crunch comes when they want to impose their beliefs on others, you don't, good for you, but what about Vic and Drew, None of your business I presume. Deists like Jefferson looked on organized religion as an abomination and a scam, unless he needed some votes and turned down the rhetoric.

          March 11, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't deny that their are Christians that have different political beliefs and ideas than me. I just can't scapegoat "Christianity" as the source of problems in the US. Nor can I do that for atheism. It is too complex to resort to such simplicity.

          We have Christians that fight and die for your right to be free. I recognize that there are atheists, deists and people of other faiths that do the same for me. That is why I have immense respect for such groups.

          March 11, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Well we can agree on something at least, I neither want to see atheists or Christians have an undue influence on the democracy we hold dear. I have to look after some accounts, bye for now, will be back tomorrow to keep you in line, LOL.

          March 11, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Peace out, you bossy lil' guy.

          March 11, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          One last thing, you said I used the tap dancing phrase often today, sorry pal, check the record, I didn't use it until you pointed it out to me. I don't mind you being obtuse, but please get your FACTS right.

          March 11, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Whoops, sorry, that was "igaftr". My bad. Sorry.

          March 11, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Dala,

          "lobbies for equal work and marriage rights for gays."

          As a Christian, how do you justify lobbying for gay marriage rights when this is at odds with the clear teaching of scripture?

          March 11, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          What clear teaching have you received? Remember when some Christians claimed scripture clearly taught that blacks were inferior to whites? There is no scripture that claims I should help deny rights provided to me by my government to others. Jesus said nothing about denying rights to gays. He did say a lot about divorce. I know we have a lot of divorced Christians in our midst, and nobody seems to address their sins as adamantly as the sins of gays. I hardly doubt you are sin free. I'm called by Jesus to love others. Some gays are suffering persecution by others. Their voice isn't being heard. So we fight to protect their rights.

          http://www.reconcilingworks.org/

          March 11, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
        • observernow

          Dalahäst,

          I'm not sure how much of any value you'll put on something I say, but I do applaud you for your position on gays and wish every Christian had a similar at-itude.

          March 11, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Thanks. There is a lot of work to be done to end oppression of this group. Not just in religious societies, but secular society, too.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I used to live blocks from the Fred Phelps clan. At the time I hated religion, but was surprised by the number of gays and lesbians who were Christian that came out in defiance of that hate group. They didn't see a need to reject their religion – scripture didn't tell them to not be gay or to obey the religious conservative right-wing agenda. They wanted to reject the people carrying out hate in a loving manner. It provided a good example for me.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Dala,

          I am certainly not sin free. Far from it and in need of a Savior as all on this board is.

          Romans 1:25-27 (NASB)

          25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
          26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

          1 Corinthians 6:9,10 (NASB)

          9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor ho-mose-xuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • observernow

          Dalahäst,

          Bigotry is wrong from any point of view.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Dala,

          I want to emphasize that I'm not saying that ho-mose-xual desire is sinful. It is acting on that desire that is the sin. A heterose-xual male can have a desire for women but it becomes a sin when he lusts after that woman in his heart or commits fornication, adultery, etc. Christians do not live according to the desires of the flesh but by the Spirit. It is God who gives us the strength to overcome the flesh.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I know I'm a sinner, too.

          There are different interpretations of the scripture you reference that don't translate it as "hom.s.exual".

          There is no scripture that condemns same se.x marriage.

          "Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with hom.s.xuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to his Jewish- Christian spiritual idealism. He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heteros.xuals. To say that h.mos.xuality is bad because h.mos.xuals are tempted to do morally doubtful things is to say that heteros.xuality is bad because heteros.xuals are likewise tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God’s is condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone."

          Peter Gomes

          He also mentioned:

          "There is no mention of hom.s.xuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject."

          --
          "As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12, 1 John 1:8). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145:9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about hom.s.xuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39)."

          March 11, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          truthfollower01

          Ok, so personally don't agree with equal rights for gays then? How am I violating scripture by supporting the same rights I have to be extended to others?

          At what point does a h.mos.xual desire become sinful? Just when one acts on it? Didn't Jesus say if you even think about a woman lustfully you have committed sin. I'm screwed right there.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • Vic

          That's one of the areas early responders to my OP completely missed the point of referencing the two passages—Matthew 22:37-39 & John 13:34 (NASB)

          March 11, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Dala,

          Paul certainly advocated marriage between male and female as referenced throughout his letters (1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5, etc.) and he spoke against ho-mose-xuality, even calling it "unnatural (Romans 1:26) and indicating that it is an indescent act (Romans 1:27).
          The four Gospels do not need to comment on the term hom-ose-xuality because all scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). Paul's message was from God Himself. However, Jesus does stress that a marriage is between husband and wife as it has been from the beginning of creation. Matthew 19:4-7 – And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

          March 11, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01

          "Paul certainly advocated marriage between male and female"

          You might read that again. He said that men and women should NOT have s3x, but supported marriage because they likely couldn't control themselves.

          Not exactly a RINGING ENDORSEMENT for marriage.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Why should your book of fairy tales have any say on the freedom of others?

          If you are against gay marriage...don't get gay married...

          March 12, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Dala,

          "At what point does a h.mos.xual desire become sinful? Just when one acts on it?"

          The sinful nature in all of us desires different sinful things. It may be desiring hom-ose-xual relations for one person and heterose-xual relations for another. The person who acts on the hom-ose-xual desires (lustful looking, fornication, adultery, etc.) sins against God. The person who is acting improperly on the heterose-xual desires (looking lustfully, fornication, adultery, etc.) is sinning against God and living according to the flesh. God gives us the power to overcome the flesh and live according to the Spirit.

          From a Christian perspective, I love the ho-mos-exual as I love the drunkard, the drug addict, etc. but Christians mustn't pretend like everything is okay with any lifestyle a person lives. God has mandated what is Godly and what is not. We must portray this lovingly to a lost society who needs a Savior, a Savior who can give the victory to those struggling with sin.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Paul also assumed it was unnatural for men to have long hair. (1 Corinthians 11:14).

          It appears he was wrong about what is natural. Same-se.x relationships occur naturally throughout God’s created order.

          That is why Peter Gomes points out he was not condemning hom.s.xuality, but the lust that puts their desires before God.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:13 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "Paul also assumed it was unnatural for men to have long hair. (1 Corinthians 11:14)."

          Whether you want to take this as a custom at the time or a binding rule for the future, it certainly doesn't show Paul to have been wrong. You have to look at the context of Paul's discussion of the male and female and their roles.

          "It appears he was wrong about what is natural."

          Are you saying that Paul, who wrote under the guidance and influence of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16) was wrong?

          "Same-se.x relationships occur naturally throughout God’s created order."

          We live in a fallen creation as indicated by scripture. Romans 8:19-22 – 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
          22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

          March 12, 2014 at 12:30 am |
        • observernow

          Truthfollower01,

          Timothy said men and women shouldn't have s3x. Sound bright to you?

          Timothy (I Tim. 2:12) also says “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.”

          The person with the highest IQ in the world is a woman. So what is your point?

          March 12, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Paul is human so he can be wrong. Or others can be wrong about what he is trying to say, which I think is the point. At one point Paul thought God's will for him was to persecute the church. He was wrong.

          So I guess I'm not saying Paul is wrong. I think you are.

          Here is a good writing about Paul and "natural":

          http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section04.html

          March 12, 2014 at 12:42 am |
        • Dalahäst

          " Paul starts by talking about those "awful pagans" - a group which both Jew and Greek Christians felt superior to. He gives a laundry list of "sins" and the Christians are probably going "yeh, yeh, those bad people, we are better". Then, after having caught them in their judgementalism, he says "by judging, you pass judgement on yourself." By using a pagan example of sins, he could then go on to say, in effect-GOTCHA! Do not judge! He said, "God shows no partiality" (2:11).

          Romans 1 is being misused today to bash h.mos.xuality much as the Jewish and Greek Christians were bashing each other in his day. He did not write Chapter 1 to be used apart from Chapter 2. His point was not to reinforce judgementalism but to say stop judging."

          March 12, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observernow,

          Please read ALL of 1 Corinthians 7 in context.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:47 am |
        • dandintac

          "To each their own"–sure, but "my own" and others, is that these are meaningless. Post Bible verses all you want, and we will say they are meaningless. So your Bible verses are just preaching to the choir. In other words, pasting them is probably a waste of your time. They have no effect on anyone other than your fellow believers, who have already bought into all this anyway.

          Furthermore, not only have they no impact on atheists, I doubt if they have any effect on those who are uncertain, unpersuaded, or those who are on their way out. Reason and evidence are your best bets if you want to move the argument. The problem is–you have none.

          Thanks

          March 12, 2014 at 12:48 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          READ a Bible.

          Did he say those things? YES or NO?

          Answer please. If stumped, read one then come back.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:51 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Dala,

          "Paul is human so he can be wrong."

          Paul wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit so to say he was wrong in his teachings in the Bible is to say that what God has revealed in Scripture is wrong.

          "At one point Paul thought God’s will for him was to persecute the church. He was wrong."

          Of course he was. He was lost. He persecuted the followers of Jesus. He didn't have the indwelling Holy Spirit until he was saved.

          "So I guess I’m not saying Paul is wrong."

          So you are then affirming as true what Paul said when he spoke against ho-mose-xuality, even calling it "unnatural (Romans 1:26) and indicating that it is an indescent act (Romans 1:27)?

          "I think you are."

          No way. I affirm Paul's writings in the Bible as coming from God.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:55 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm not saying Paul is wrong. I'm saying you are wrong about what he was saying. Or whoever taught you that was wrong.

          How can you read Romans 1 and judge me for supporting equal rights for gays? Have you not read Romans 2?

          Isn't that Paul's main point: don't judge.

          What about Romans 14?

          "Accept those whose faith is weak. Don't judge them where you have differences of opinion. 2 The faith of some people allows them to eat anything. But others eat only vegetables because their faith is weak. 3 People who eat everything must not look down on those who do not. And people who don't eat everything must not judge those who do. God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servants? Whether they are faithful or not is their own master's concern. They will be faithful, because the Lord has the power to make them faithful."

          Why hasn't God used his power to make them faithful like you?

          God has accepted them. Why not you?

          March 12, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Dala,

          "I’m not saying Paul is wrong. I’m saying you are wrong about what he was saying. Or whoever taught you that was wrong."

          As best as I can see, we can either agree with Paul that the act of hom-ose-xual is "unnatural" and indecent or we can disagree and call God a liar by rejecting His word as truth. I'm accepting God's word as truth.

          "How can you read Romans 1 and judge me for supporting equal rights for gays?"

          I'm only telling you what the Bible says. Supporting my defense using God's word.

          Have you not read Romans 2?

          I don't know of any verse in Romans 2 that proclaims hom-ose-xuality to be good and acceptable on God's sight.

          "What about Romans 14?

          “Accept those whose faith is weak. Don’t judge them where you have differences of opinion. 2 The faith of some people allows them to eat anything. But others eat only vegetables because their faith is weak. 3 People who eat everything must not look down on those who do not. And people who don’t eat everything must not judge those who do. God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servants? Whether they are faithful or not is their own master’s concern. They will be faithful, because the Lord has the power to make them faithful.”

          This doesn't pertain to the practice of hom-ose-xuality at all.

          "Why hasn’t God used his power to make them faithful like you?"

          Why are you attacking me? I'm not trying to be rude in any way but want to stand up for the teaching of God's word.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:18 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Sorry if I am coming off as strong. I'm not trying to attack you. You asked me how I can support gay rights with what scripture clearly says.

          It obviously isn't that clear if it is a dividing point between Christians. I have read your understandings. And I have read the understandings of other people. People who make the same claims as you that they are standing up for God's word.

          I'm standing up for God's word. You are not his only spokesperson. Let Jesus come down right now and correct me if I'm wrong for supporting my neighbor. He certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with us using his name to share God's love with our neighbors who happen to be gay. In fact, he shows up for communion with us. Probably the same way he does for you, despite your sins.

          Romans 2 is about you. Not about the h.mos.xual. What you condemn others for, God condemns you for. Perhaps it might be wise to ensure your Christian and non-Christians brothers and sisters who happen to be h.mos.xual have access to the same rights as you?

          March 12, 2014 at 1:44 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Get it?

          Paul is not writing about h.mos.xuals. He is writing about people who judge others. You keep focusing on one verse. One verse that some disagree with the translators you are using. Some Holy Bibles do not say "h.mos.xual" in that verse!

          Read the whole book. Not just that one verse.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:47 am |
      • joey3467

        I take that back, they are meaningless until you prove your god and not some other god from a different book is actually real.

        March 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
      • igaftr

        My favorite is when King Herod said to Jesus:
        "Prove to me that you're no fool
        walk acrossed my swimming pool"

        and
        "Prove to me that you're divine
        turn my water into wine"

        a the beauty of scripture

        March 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
      • Reality

        And even more so since said passages fail rigorous historic testing. See for example, Professor Gerd Ludemann's studies in his book Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 86 (for Mark 12: 28-34 – Mark is the more historic gospel of the four – John's gospel has little or no historic credibility)

        March 11, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
    • Drew

      When the pope is feeding the poor or visiting with the homeless, he is practicing what the holy scripture says.

      The pope need not be a superman, he just needs to set the example for the rest of mankind to follow, ie, follow the holy scriptures.

      March 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
  14. Doris

    Question regarding the Abrahamic God for believers of such. Who is your god's ethical adviser? Who must this god answer to in order to be ethically perfect or "just" or "moral"? Most importantly, what is the reason for your answer? What knowledge do you hold to be certain of your answer and where did you get it?

    March 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
    • Doris

      Hint: "The God of Abraham has nor needs his own ethical adviser" is a valid answer but the remaining questions still apply.

      Don't be bashful now....

      March 11, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
    • colin31714

      I'll try. The Abrahamic god gets his morality from his believers. When a society shares common values, the majority of its people project those values onto their god and he becomes the society’s god. When those values evolve, so does the god. This is why we see the Abrahamic god evolve from the Cannanite smiting son-of-a-bit.ch he was when the OT was written to the soft, nebulous "hey can't we all just get along" god he has become today.

      He even loves gays in the USA today. Try convincing the God of 2,000 years ago of that! Or even the God of fifty years ago. He is mere a reflection of ourselves (or at least of those who believe in him).

      March 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
      • Doris

        I agree, Colin. I can see why this would be a tough question for theists to approach and answer completely.

        March 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • colin31714

          This is why the gods of the Tibetans dwells on Mt. Everest, why the gods of the Australian Aboriginals take the form of the animals of the Outback and why the god of the Jews picked his chosen people to be, you guessed it...the Jews.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Every person making a claim of a God is making a claim for a new God because there are no two people who have exactly the same concept and opinion of God even within the same denominations and thus humans have believed in billions of different versions of Gods throughout history with all of them having exactly the same evidence to support them, none.

        As to morality, I believe religion has been used and may have even been invented specifically for overriding socially evolved morality and empathy in order to dominate and control the weaker among them. If your empathy tells you that snuffing out the life of another who is competing for the same resource is bad, then humans needed to invent a reason it could be seen as good, as in "That guy trying to take my fruit worships the devil! Get 'im!" which explains why there are so many religious differences between regional areas.

        March 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • Doris

          Good points. And if one's actions are to obviously harmful, then the person's religion is likely to have implemented a "get out of jail free" card of sorts in some manner along the way.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • Doris

          too obviously harmful..

          March 11, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • ausphor

          Doris
          Of course, the 72 virgins if you are willing to fall on your sword for god.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      + Who is your god's ethical adviser?

      He IS the adviser. The ultimate authority.

      + Who must this god answer to in order to be ethically perfect or "just" or "moral"?

      He is soverign.

      + Most importantly, what is the reason for your answer? What knowledge do you hold to be certain of your answer and where did you get it?

      I'm not certain. But I'm hopeful that there is justice in the world. All human endeavors have failed to be just, moral or even ethically decent. Even those with really good intentions, have not been just or completely moral.

      Not 1 human has seemed to live up to this standard. I've been applying Jesus' teachings to my life and attempting to live out what he asks. Which, I think leads to bringing justice to those in need. I really take it one day at a time. I don't have all the answers. And I ask similar questions like these all the time.

      There is a difference between knowing about God, and knowing God. Just like there is a difference between knowing about ethics, and carrying out ethics. Or knowing about justice and acting justly.

      It is easy to tell people you are good or moral. It is more true when others are saying that about you (and not many people are saying that about me! I've got work to do).

      March 11, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
      • Doris

        Dala, I hope you see that this from you: "He IS the adviser. The ultimate authority."

        is just as strong about knowledge as someone saying to you (recently) "[doesn't know..] and no one else does either".

        Because you state that with such strength of knowledge, then how is it you are certain that the possibility does not exist that the God of Abraham does, in fact have to answer to some higher God – God, Jr, who is yet under another – God, Sr. perhaps?

        How fully can you know a god if you think you know him without knowing such basics about who he is, such as could there be someone above him that he for one reason or another has chosen not to share with mankind? What if the God of Abraham answers to a "hit man" type God that occasionally causes strife in our world but never leaves a calling card (and where the Abrahamic God just cleans up the mess the best he can but fears being a snitch)? I can think of lots of possibilities where the early theist has left enough holes to make swiss cheese look like brie...

        March 11, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Basic theology states that God is soverign.

          If he wasn't, he'd just be an idol or something like a human being.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • Doris

          Oh so you think it's true because basic theology says so. OK. Interesting.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, I didn't mean that. But theology is an attempt at a logical and rational understanding of God. So many of the questions you ask, questions I ask, I have answered or challenged via theology.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • joey3467

          Theology is nothing but the study of something that someone made up in the past. Until someone proves their particular god is in fact real debating the characteristics of any god seems pointless.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
      • dandintac

        Dalahäst!!

        "All human endeavors have failed to be just, moral or even ethically decent."

        Goodness gracious–do you truly believe this? I can provide a huge list of just, moral and ethical actions taken by many people, both individually and collective efforts.

        And if you insist that the next good effect isn't perfect enough, that there must be absolutely no imaginable bad side effect, no matter how minor, then I would remind you of the long list of actions by the god character of the Bible that Christians routinely defend by claiming that the overall net effect is good, in spite of the apparent badness, even though we cannot see it

        Do you really want to stand by your claim that no one has ever done even an ethically decent thing? Really??

        March 12, 2014 at 1:16 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "Do you really want to stand by your claim that no one has ever done even an ethically decent thing? Really??"

          No, that is not my claim. Nobody can claim to be perfectly ethical, was the point I was trying to make. I believe we live in what the scriptures describe as a fallen world: one that has failed to live up to its own ideals.

          But sure, give me some examples of just, moral and ethical people. It will just be a list that you have decided is just, moral and ethical. I'm sure some people might disagree with you. Who is the ultimate judge of who is just, moral and ethical? God?

          No human has the power to back up their judgements. Can they? I don't think so.

          Human beings as a whole have failed to be ethical. With religion. Without religion. All have fallen short.

          But sure, give me your list of who you judged

          March 12, 2014 at 1:36 am |
        • dandintac

          How about the plane that went down in the freezing Potomac River in the early 80s. A man kept passing the lifeline to other survivors, sacrificing himself to save others. How about the men who have jumped on grenades, giving their lives to save those of their fellow soldiers. How about Vicki Soto, the teacher at Sandy Hook who gave her life by using her own body to shield children from the madman's bullets?

          Please explain to me how these actions are not perfectly moral.

          This is one of the greatest harms of Christianity. It demands absolute moral perfection, or else we must be considered evil. Nothing is ever good enough. It beats us down with accusations of thought crimes and for our basic human nature:
          You are less than perfect! BAM!
          You are sinful! BAM!
          You are bad! BAM!
          You feel lust! BAM!
          You are NOTHING without Jesus! BAM!
          You cannot have any purpose without God! BAM!
          You cannot be moral without God! BAM!

          They beat you down. Then, they come in, and offer you the prosthetic of their religion to try to prop you up again–the very same club used to beat you down with in the first place.

          Religion–especially the western monotheistic ones–attack us in our most basic integrity–our morality.

          March 12, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Doris,

      “Question regarding the Abrahamic God for believers of such. Who is your god's ethical adviser?”
      God does not seek council from any being.

      “Who must this god answer to in order to be ethically perfect or "just" or "moral"?”
      God doesn’t answer to any being.

      “Most importantly, what is the reason for your answer?”
      The word of God, aka the bible, says so.

      “What knowledge do you hold to be certain of your answer and where did you get it?”
      Same as above.

      March 11, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
      • Doris

        "aka the bible, says so. "

        Thank you, Robert. You may return to the play-wheel – I mean the circle that will be unbroken.. 🙄

        March 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          You are most welcome Doris.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • joey3467

          "because the Bible says so:" Is a terrible reason to believe anything.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right, because "because joey3467 says so" makes so much more sense.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
      • sam stone

        "God does not seek council from any being."

        Man created god

        March 11, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
      • sam stone

        if god does not seek counsel from any human being, what is the point of intercessory prayer?

        March 11, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Doris,

      God's nature is where morality derives from and His nature is unchanging. In God is how we can affirm objective morality. He doesn't change.

      March 11, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Is genocide always wrong?

        Yes or no.

        March 11, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Depends on the event and it's context. What event are you referring to? Are you referring to Noah's flood? If so, this was God carrying out judgement on the wicked.

          March 11, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What did all the children, babies, babies in womb, animals, fish do that was wicked?
          Why wouldn't an omnipotent god just smite the actual wicked and make any replacements from mud? Seems so much more civilized.

          March 11, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Santa,

          I believe that God ushers the children who are below the age of accountability into His presence for eternity. It is important to remember that God works with eternity in view. God doesn’t wrong these children’s lives by removing them from the world. They actually inherit the great blessing of being with God where believers, including myself long to be. Even Paul himself said that he desired to depart to be with Christ, which is better by far (Philippians 1:21). Notice that last part, “better by far”.

          March 11, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Depends on the event and it's context."

          If moraity is dependent on "event" and "context" ....morality is not objective.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:09 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed,

          "If moraity is dependent on “event” and “context” ….morality is not objective."

          This is a huge non sequitur.

          Question. In our society, does a judge do right or wrong when he hands down a just punishment on the guilty?

          March 12, 2014 at 12:12 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "In our society, does a judge do right or wrong when he hands down a just punishment on the guilty?"

          That depends on the ruling, judges make poor decisions all the time. A judge is not automatically "just" based on the fact he/she is a judge.

          And you say that my response is a non-sequitor...why? If morality is dependent on situations what exactly makes them objective?

          March 12, 2014 at 12:36 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed,

          "That depends on the ruling, judges make poor decisions all the time. A judge is not automatically “just” based on the fact he/she is a judge."

          Let's say that the person is 100 percent guilty. Does a judge do right or wrong when he hands down a just punishment on the 100 percent guilty?”

          "And you say that my response is a non-sequitor…why? If morality is dependent on situations what exactly makes them objective?"

          The judgement of Noah's flood could be nothing but morally right. It's not subjective. It can't go both ways.

          March 12, 2014 at 12:45 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01

          "The judgement of Noah's flood could be nothing but morally right."

          Get serious.

          You can become possibly the FIRST PERSON in HISTORY to figure out what SINS were COMMITTED by all the embryos and fetuses that JUSTIFIED God's KILLING every one.

          Any answer at all?

          March 12, 2014 at 12:49 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Not sure how you know there were embryos and fetuses but concerning children in general, I believe that God ushers the children who are below the age of accountability into His presence for eternity. It is important to remember that God works with eternity in view. God doesn’t wrong these children’s lives by removing them from the world. They actually inherit the great blessing of being with God where believers, including myself long to be. Even Paul himself said that he desired to depart to be with Christ, which is better by far (Philippians 1:21). Notice that last part, “better by far”.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Does a judge do right or wrong when he hands down a just punishment on the 100 percent guilty?”

          And I said it depends on the ruling. Judges make bad rulings on the guilty all the time, sometimes their bad rulings favor the guilty. Making a ruling even if the person is guilty does not automatically make the ruling "just".

          "The judgement of Noah's flood could be nothing but morally right. It's not subjective. It can't go both ways."

          Sure it can, the "god" that did that can be an immoral dictator that enjoys watching people suffer. You have deemed any action by your god automatically "just" based soley on his power. Might does not make right. And I was not necessarily refering to Noah's flood. If a dictator declared all his actions moral...does that make him moral? No.

          AND you did not answer the question...If morality is dependent on situations what exactly makes them objective?

          March 12, 2014 at 1:05 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          God torturously KILLED EVERY child, baby, fetus, and embryo ON THE FACE of the EARTH.

          You have NOTHING to back up your WISHFUL thinking that God decided to give them a Fast Pass to heaven. ZILCH. Bible NEVER said that.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01

          "God doesn’t wrong these children’s lives by removing them from the world."

          "removing them from the world" = euphemism for "torturously DROWNED"

          March 12, 2014 at 1:13 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "You have NOTHING to back up your WISHFUL thinking that God decided to give them a Fast Pass to heaven. ZILCH. Bible NEVER said that."

          Concerning David's dead child. 2 Samuel 12:23 – 23 "But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

          Also, see Isaiah below.

          Isaiah 7:15,16 – 15"He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

          March 12, 2014 at 1:34 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          AND you did not answer the question...If morality is dependent on situations what exactly makes them objective?

          March 12, 2014 at 1:40 am |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          Yep. You were unable to find ANYTHING that said that God automatically saves fetuses and embryos. Just wishful thinking.

          If you do believe it, though, you have produced the greatest argument EVER to support ABORTION. Free pass to heaven!

          March 12, 2014 at 1:41 am |
  15. colin31714

    So, science and religion can be friends according to the son-worshippers, hey? Hmmmmm, let's see.

    Science – Hello Religion, I'm science. I am about 3,000 years old.

    Religion – Hello Science, I am older than you. As far as we can tell, I go back about 40,000 years or more. There is even slight evidence that Neanderthals practiced me.

    Science – Really!! How do we know that, Religion?

    Religion – Because of you.

    Science – So, Religion, what do you do?

    Religion – Well, in the USA, I give comfort to not very smart people by letting them think that a being powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies will cause them to live happily ever after in heaven after they die if they follow some rules laid down by ignorant farmers and herders in the Middle East 2,000 years ago.

    Science – You're kidding me. They buy that?

    Religion – You'd be surprised. Not only that, but in poorer, less educated parts of the World, I can actually convince people to hit themselves until they bleed, starve themselves, bob in front of a stone wall for hours on end, wade into filthy rivers and, in some cases, to kill other people or even themselves.

    Science – Oh my goodness, I'm not sure I want to be your friend. Do you do any good?

    Religion – I sell a lot of books. And what about you science, what do you do?

    Science – I relieve pain and cure disease. I also extend lives, allow travel, communication, and people to understand and control their environment. I allow humans to explore outer space, the bottom of the oceans and subatomic particles. In short, I have allowed humans to live longer, more informed lives, and with a degree of knowledge and comfort once never dreamed of.

    Religion – Wow, they buy that?

    Science – No, of course not. Unlike you, I have to deliver. I cannot claim something and avoid skepticism by alleging that it only happens after you die, or that my claim is "beyond understanding" or otherwise exempt from critical analysis or proof.

    Religion – That's gotta suck.

    Science – You get used to it. Anyway, I need a friend I can rely on. One of substance, not dreams. One of proof, not spoof and one of intellectual discipline, not flakey promises. I don't think we can be friends. Please go away.

    Religion – Now we both know that's not going to happen.

    March 11, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Did that literally happen? Science can talk. And religion, too?

      And you know what they would say? Or did you hear this?

      Or are you speaking poetically, like some of the Bible writers did? Can you not use science to make your point?

      Why do some scientists, even atheists scientists, agree with your non-scientist opinions????

      March 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • colin31714

        Come on Dalahast, you know science and religion can't talk. The only things that can talk are a snake, a donkey, a rock and a bush – at least according to the bible.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Now you get it.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • colin31714

          And, I think, a whale, although it's been years since I read the Book of Jonah.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • Doris

          Hmm. I wonder if MIT's Physics Dept has a sub-department of "spooky" physics... probably not. But I wonder how often for any major univerity the Physics department gets together with the folks over in Philosophy for tea and cookies to go over common metaphysics concerns...

          March 11, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • colin31714

          I often wonder how places like Yale and Harvard still have divinity schools. I guess they must bring in money. Having divinity schools next to physics departments is like having an astrology school next to the astronomy department.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          “If we need an atheist for a debate, we go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”

          –Robert Griffiths, winner of the Heinemann Prize in mathematical physics.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Science – No, of course not. Unlike you, I have to deliver. I cannot claim something and avoid skepticism by alleging that it only happens after you die, or that my claim is "beyond understanding" or otherwise exempt from critical analysis or proof.

          Religion – That's gotta suck.

          Science – You get used to it."

          Religion – So if you have to deliver to be believed, and you haven't yet delivered everything there is to know in the universe, then there are things you are still unsure of correct?

          Science – Yes, that is true.

          Religion – So you cant disprove that a being powerful enough to create the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies will cause humans to live happily ever after in heaven after they die if they follow some rules laid down by ignorant farmers and herders in the Middle East 2,000 years ago?

          Science – No, not yet anyway.

          Religion – So i'm still in business! Yeah! Thought for a second there I might be in trouble...I mean, I have no other job skills so this is my only way to make a living..."

          March 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Scientist who happens to be religious: Look at my Noble Prize.

          Science: Good job.

          Non-scientist atheist: Hey! Can I piggy back on your accomplishments and blog about it?

          Scientist who happens to be religious: Sure, Colin.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Akira

          Dala: Control V.
          The beauty of proclaiming and admitting one is a hypocrite is that it makes one appear to be humble, while enabling one to continue being a hypocrite.

          Quite the sly ploy.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          So true.

          I've got work to do. Do you know of any practices one can adopt that promote humility?

          March 11, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Do you know of any practices one can adopt that promote humility?"

          Not claiming that you have a personal relationship with and can communicate to the creator of the universe is a start...

          March 11, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That doesn't make you humble.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • joey3467

          Believing that you have a direct line to the creator of the universe, and that he watches over you, and cares about what you do is the least humble thing I can think of.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          humility: a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness.

          "Sure, there are billions of other people who I believe are lying when they claim to communicate to the creator of the entire universe because MY God is the only true God and they do not worship MY God whom I can speak with through silent prayes in my head..."

          Humble? Really?

          March 11, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          We all know how special you think you are, you tell us over and over again every day; despite all your faults you are just wwuunnddeerrffuull!!!!

          March 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          There isn't a single religion out there today that doesn't in effect stand all pompous, hands raised to the sky like some overly-muscled He-Man and make the proclamation "We Have The Power!"

          To be religious you must first give up your humility and stand with others of the religion and say "Even though there isn't a shred of empirical evidence for these beliefs I will believe based on faith that I have picked the right all powerful creator deity and am worshiping him the way he wants to be worshiped so that I may gain favor with this omnipotent being and willingly become its slave like some mind wiped Silver Surfer..."

          March 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          atheist –

          Some religious people really do think that way. And that is not humble thinking. I hear such notions preached against by Christians. It is a mindset to avoid. I strive to. I don't think they way you are describing.

          Ausphor

          I never said I was wonderful. Who is "we"? Some of the regulars on here claim you are delusional for believing in God.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          You are a devious troll; "we" can be the royal we, figure it out. Why are you devious because you claim to be Christian, right? Yet when someone asks you if you believe specific Christian beliefs like miracles and the resurrection, you duck the question? How many times have you posted "you do not know what I believe". Of course no one knows what you believe you never make a clear statement from page to page or answer a question honestly. At least the atheists that post here come out and say there isn't a god and back that up with logic and reason, you have nothing but evasion.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • colin31714

          Ausphor, you hit the nail on the head when you said, "Yet when someone asks you if you believe specific Christian beliefs like miracles and the resurrection, you duck the question? How many times have you posted "you do not know what I believe". Of course no one knows what you believe you never make a clear statement from page to page or answer a question honestly. At least the atheists that post here come out and say there isn't a god and back that up with logic and reason, you have nothing but evasion."

          I suspect he dodges and weaves because he knows that, once he gets specific, his view is open to scrutiny and will fall on its face.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It feels like you are trolling me. Welcome to the club. Thanks for continuing to tell me things you imagine.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Colin

          It usually looks like this –

          "You are a delusional idiot who believes such absurd notions such as a magical sky fairy answers your prayers like a genie."

          me: Uh, no I don't believe like that.

          "So, you don't pray?"

          me: Uh, I pray.

          "See, you are a delusional idiot who believes such absurd notions such as a magical sky fairy answers your prayers like a genie."

          Ugh.

          And then later you tell me you imagined I was dumbfounded by your "logic".

          No. No. No. You are just rehashing the same ol' philosophy from 5 years ago that I used to read about online.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • joey3467

          Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross to forgive the sins of mankind?

          March 11, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          So spit it out, tell us what part of the Christian myth you believe, what parts you do not. Then you can quit using the line "you do not know what I believe." Man up, atheists tell you straight up that there is no god and just want evidence in the supernatural to accept a god, put up or shut up already.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          If there is true justice in the world, my debts will be great. I have failed to live up to even my own ideals. And the ideals that would accompany a truly moral and just world: I'd be part of the problem. But I'm changing that.

          I think what Jesus did is helping me accomplish that. I'm forgiving and I forgive others. I'm ready to be part of the solution. I'm serving those in need. I'm rejecting religion, and I'm picking up action. I'm following Jesus' voice.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • joey3467

          Answer the question. Yes or No. Did Jesus die for the sins of mankind? I will even go first. NO, I don't believe that.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Then why do you come on this blog and troll atheists comment? Did your version of jesus tell you to rage against non-believers or to love them as your neighbours? You can't have it both ways you either follow the teachings of jesus or play the hypocrite. What is the matter with your thinking? Playing the victim is so unbecoming of you, taking atheist comments as directed expressly at you, grow up.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I believe Jesus died for my sins. My harms and personal shortcomings that have effected others is forgiving through Jesus. I am responsible for my actions and must make amends. Through Jesus I can learn to not harm others and live how our Creator created us to live. To be more giving, than taking. To forgive more, than seek revenge. To bring harmony, not discord. Yes, Jesus takes our harms and failures from us and creates in us something new.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ausphor

          I don't come to troll atheists.

          I try to share my beliefs and experiences. Sometimes I get in arguments and get sidetracked.

          I often encounter bossy people who demand I answer their questions by their standards. I don't really care if they want to call me names and try to demean me. It points to something sad probably happening within themselves. It is not my problem.

          I try to answer all questions. Some questions are loaded or presume something about me that is false. So I try to explain myself.

          Sorry if I bother you. Feel free to leave me alone.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Fair is fair, I will stop asking ragging on you if you will do the same with you comments on Doc and bostontola. Do "we" have a deal?

          March 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Doc and Bostontola can speak for themselves. I doubt they appreciate you trying to stand up for them.

          No deal.

          How about you stop resorting to calling me names? How about acting respectful? Also, one time someone started calling me a troll and used phrases like "tap dancing" A LOT. I busted him for using multiple names. (like 6!). It think the main account link to a "Peter" website. Was that you by any chance?

          March 11, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          No not me, but do like the tap-dancing reference in regards to you, I will use it in the future, thanks. I think the only nasty name I used in regards to you was Christian, neither hypocrite or troll rises to that level of desp!cability. The one thing you and I have in common is that we seldom make posts that begin a thread, we are responders, I will be here for you until you get over yourself.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You really are only in charge of yourself and your actions.

          You've made the "tap dancing" comment a lot today. Some proven troll made it toward me before just as much. I'm glad you like it so much. It doesn't bother me. You can act like that troll if you want.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
      • Akira

        Why do you continue to answer Colin with your opinions if his opinions irritates you so much? He's not going to change your mind. You're not going to change his.

        Looks like some version of tit for tat going on. Not that it's any less amusing; it just seems like an exercise in futility.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I should probably just ignore him like most people do?

          March 11, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Akira

          Except most people don't ignore him. And answer my question.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Most people actually do ignore him. Especially when he spams the blog with off-topic rants.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • Akira

          And you still didn't answer.
          Quite a few people notice your proclivity for question deflection.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Akira

          The reason I engage in conversation with him: probably the exact same reason you are engaging in conversation with me.

          Why did when I first met you and posted as "December", you lied and said you could read IP Addresses on this blog and I was actually a poster named something like "Phillip Douglas"? You consistently called me a liar. I asked you to state what my IP Address was, and you lied and stated it was in a city I didn't live in.

          Why did you do that? How do you live with yourself calling me a liar, when we both knew for a fact that you were lying. Nobody else knew the truth. But we both did.

          That was a great illustration of hypocrisy in action. I've been guilty of the same crimes you commit. It damaged me more than the person I was lying about.

          Have you taken any steps to stop lying in such a manner?

          March 11, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • joey3467

          Dala, are you even capable of answering a question, or are you just here to call everyone a hypocrite?

          March 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I am capable of answering a question. I will point out the hypocrisy of the anti-theists all day long.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Akira

          Dalahast, I don't believe I claimed that I personally could track IP addresses; only that I know people that do. Because that is the absolute truth.
          Think of the sam equipment that CNN uses. Same thing.

          The rest if your rant is off topic, something that I notice you have no qualms about pointing out to other people.

          And it is well known that I am neither anti-theist nor atheist. So, if you're going to quibble, that's a lie.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You seriously told me you tracked my ip address and gave a fake address.

          When I questioned you, you called me a liar.

          An atheist actually came to my defense and said something along the lines of "Just ignore her. Most of us do. What does it really matter?" Great advice.

          So I took that advice. But I do wonder "how you live with yourself if you honestly were trying to convince others I was lying, when you were the one doing the lying?".

          Why don't you answer that question?

          March 11, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
        • Doris

          When was this Dala? Most here know that Akira's handle has been frequently robbed by trolls. (Clue being the lack of a bluish hyperlinked moniker.)

          March 11, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Doris,

          It was December of 2012. Wow, a long time ago. Really, it is just between her and I. We are the only 2 that had access to the truth about who I was and who was lying.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • Akira

          Dala, you can say anything you'd like concerning your city; I think everyone knows that.
          I was going by information given to me. You disagreed. Does that mean I lied? No. Does that mean you told the truth? No.

          Why are you bringing this up now, unless it's a concerted effort to retaliate at some slight you feel I committed today by asking you why, since it appears that Colin irritates you, do you bother answering? You may certainly take the advice of the name-changing troll and ignore me and my question, if you'd like.

          I was, however, genuinely curious.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have been just curious. I mean you were very adamant that I was Phillip Douglas and you had the evidence on your side.

          You even stated I was anti-gay. Which was crazy.

          I think we both typed one line at a time.

          And put spaces between them, so you rationalized I was the same guy. Even though I just happened to believe in God, but didn't really say anti-gay things like he did.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
        • Akira

          The IP you were using went back to PD, who was notoriously anti gay and used to post here. Perhaps the question should be why someone was using whomever IP, especially as one as awful as Phillip/Douglas was.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I wasn't using his IP, you just claimed I was.

          I also posted from multiple IPs (2 different cities, states listed) and you missed that, too. Or I'm sorry, your guys that tracked the IP missed that fact.

          It was kind of funny. I had no idea what you were talking about. Or who Phillip/Douglas was. Or why you and another poster were taunting me with anti-gay accusations. It was funny because I'm not anti-gay nor have made any anti-gay comments online. My lesbian pastor can vouch for me! 🙂

          March 11, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          Akira
          Now dala is calling you Adam Ant...i would not let that slide.

          Dala "I mean you were very adamant"

          March 11, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • Akira

          Igaftr, I believe in my evidence as much as he believes in his.

          He can deny the evidence if he wants to; but it has been shown to me to be real.

          March 11, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
        • Akira

          And by that, igaftr, I am Stuart Leslie Goddard, lol

          March 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Colin – Hey science.

      Science – What is up?

      Colin – Ctrl – V

      Science: Nice philosophy dude.

      Colin: Where are you going???

      Colin: Science?

      Philosophy: Hey dude!

      Colin: Can you be my science?

      Philosophy: Sure, partner. Just imagine what you want and insist you are right.

      Colin: Thanks. To the religious blogs!

      Philosophy: What about a science blog?

      Colin: Can you help me understand what they are talking about on a science blog?

      Philosophy: No. Most scientists won't care about your science philosophy.

      Colin: 🙁

      Philosophy: 🙁

      March 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Dala – Hey science.

        Science – What is up?

        Dala – The global flood described in Genesis really happened.

        Science: No it didn't.

        Dala: Where are you going???

        Dala: Science?

        Religion: Hey dude!

        Dala: Can you be my science?

        Religion: Sure, partner. Just imagine what you want and insist you are right.

        Dala: Thanks. To the religious blogs!

        Religion: What about a science blog?

        Dala: Can you help me understand what they are talking about on a science blog?

        Religion: Not really. Most scientists won't care about your religion but that doesn't matter, just make the claims anyway! And when the evidence doesn't support your claims, just refute the evidence as the party pooper it is!

        Dala: You're right! I will! Thanks Religion.

        Religion: Always happy to help! Just drop the $19.95 in the plate on your way out...

        March 11, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          neverbeenhappieratheist – Dala said "The global flood described in Genesis really happened."

          Me: No I didn't.

          neverbeenhappieratheist: Ok, I guess I don't have any evidence to support that claim. My bad. But, most scientists won't care about your religion.

          Me: Nor will they care about your atheism.

          Science: Nobody has really said anything about me. 🙁

          March 11, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      " My study reveals that the worldview of these scientists is so different from traditional theology in that no gods exist for them, there is no such thing as the incorporeal spirit or soul, there is no life after death — all of the things that are held most passionately by traditional theology, all of them have to be abandoned. And if that condition is met, then religion is perfectly harmonious with the tenets of science. The only way to find compatibility in such a worldview is by accepting a religion with no authority on the most meaningful matters of human existence. For that, we have sociobiology, or evolutionary biology, and that, to me, is offensive to most theologically-minded people."

      – Dr. Greg Graffin, discussing his PHD Thesis "Atheism, Monism and the Naturalist Worldview"

      " The great majority (of scientists) see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists, in contrast, tend toward the hypothesis that cultural change alone produced religions, minus evolutionary change in humans."
      (Greg Graffin and Will Provine, "American Scientist 95[4]:294-297, 2007.)

      March 11, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        “A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
        –Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe.

        “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

        –Astronomer, physicist and founder of NASA’s Goddard Inst.itute of Space Studies Robert Jastrow. Please see Jastrow’s book God and the Astronomers for further reading:
        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393850064/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=goevcoll-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0393850064

        March 11, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
    • Robert Brown

      Colin,

      “if they follow some rules”

      This is true of all major religions, except one.

      March 11, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
      • colin31714

        so?

        March 11, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          I thought you may have intended to include christianity when you refered to religion above. If not, sorry to bother you.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • colin31714

          I did. Again, what is your point?

          March 11, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          In christianity, your current and eternal security are not dependent on your ability to follow rules.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • joey3467

          Sure there is a rule. It is believe that Jesus died for your sins.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "In christianity, your current and eternal security are not dependent on your ability to follow rules."

          Robert,

          I don't think that is exactly true. A person is required to follow the "rule" of "belief". If one does not believe.

          Correct?

          March 11, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          You guys don't really think you can make yourself have faith, do you?

          March 11, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Robert, do you think YOU can make them have faith ? If not, why proselytize ?

          March 11, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          No Midwest, I can't give them faith. All Christians are called to share the good news. One sows, another waters, but it is God who gives the increase.

          March 11, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "You guys don't really think you can make yourself have faith, do you?"

          No...but apparently your "perfect" god does. And if you admit belief can't be legislated then you seem to admit rewarding and punishing based on belief isn't really rational.

          March 11, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
  16. bostontola

    God has been an ongoing guess by mankind. This is not a guess, or an opinion, or a theory. There have been many of these God guesses. Many are recorded in history going back thousands of years before Christ.

    March 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Vic

      If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

      This existence, the universe and life in it, has been the solid ever-giving evidence to every living soul that there is a Creator God. That is an unequivocal frame of reference.

      March 11, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
      • Doris

        A Creator God like John Adams believed in? That doesn't play a role in people's lives? If not, why do you think not, and where on what do you base your certainty?

        March 11, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • joey3467

        I have to agree with you Vic, Creation is all the evidence one needs to know that Zeus is real.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • observernow

        The real problem is how a Creator was created without a creator.

        March 11, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Vic

          Not a problem at all.

          We believe God is Metaphysical and Eternal in Generation, a Self-Existent non-created Being.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Translation of Vic,

          We create a special catagory for our god that cannot be disproven.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • joey3467

          Vic, all you need to do now is prove it.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
  17. Vic

    So, the next entry has been closed for comments for two days now, what did I miss?

    March 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
    • Doris

      Not much Vic.

      March 11, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • midwest rail

      See page 13, maybe 1/3 of the way down.

      March 11, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
      • Akira

        That story doesn't display any page numbers for me...what was it? (If you can tell me without being offensive to the powers-that-be, that is.)

        March 11, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
        • Vic

          I believe he is referring to this blog's page 13.

          I just checked it out, it seem the poster 'Apple Bush' blew it with some profane 10 Commandments' parody.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • Vic

          I believe he is referring to this blog's page 13.

          I just checked it out, it seems like the poster 'Apple Bush' blew it with some profane 10 Commandments' parody.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Doris

          I think midwest is talking about the page numbers of this article, Akira, if I understood correctly. There is a bit of conversation there about what was going on with that article there.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Doris

          Actually Apple's 10 C was not that off the wall to me except it needed some work on one of them (#8?) to make it not so directed at the male anatomy.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • Akira

          Oooooh. I misunderstood; I thought mr meant on the original article referenced.

          Yes, I saw that. Apple can be very...bombastic at times. But that's him; and that's a great many posters here. Such is the net.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Yes, pg 13 from this thread, my apologies for not being more clear. I'm not sure if it was another poster or the editor himself who objected, but since that thread was removed, none of AB's various namesakes have appeared here.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • midwest rail

          Correction – none that I am aware of.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • ausphor

          AB and Austin both gone, coincidence?

          March 11, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Akira

          I do know that some WP accounts were getting stuck in the spam folder for some reason and not posting; this happened to me, as Mr. Burke explained it to me.
          Perhaps this is happening to others.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • sam stone

          What happened to Topher/Gopher?

          March 12, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
  18. Doris

    Question regarding the Abrahamic God for believers of such. Who is your god's ethical adviser? Who must this god answer to in order to be ethically perfect or "just" or "moral"? Most importantly, what is the reason for your answer? What knowledge do you hold to be certain of your answer?

    March 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
    • Doris

      Also just as important – where did you come by your knowledge (pertaining to the last question)?

      March 11, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
    • believerfred

      At the foundation of God is that God cannot be compared with anything known or knowable to man. This incomparability is what separates God from all other man made gods and related faiths / religions. This is how I know that God is, as God put it; "tell them I am" sent you when the people asked Moses whom shall we say sent you. God is absolute in all accounts not even our greatest thought, largest temple or infinite expanse of knowable baryonic matter can encompass I am.
      This is the heart of belief, that something 98% of mankind has awareness and instinct touching the 6th sense that escapes the natural, escapes scientism all of which our greatest achievements or boundary of creativity cannot embrace.

      March 11, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
      • Doris

        "At the foundation of God is that God cannot be compared with anything known or knowable to man."

        Yes – the foundation to control and instill fear in another would best work the that kind of "rule".

        March 11, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • believerfred

          That would be a confusion of mans ways to the ways of God. Fear not is the underlying theme not fear. Those with a false man made understanding of God run the race before them with fear.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • believerfred

          Let there be no doubt you and I are in the same race with time and at the conclusion there is or is not. The Bible says there is and God refers to self as I am. With God or absent God you and I are in a closed loop. With God that loop is eternal in God alone while absent God that loop is contained in the organic matter reacting to chemical stimuli. Does the latter make any sense to you on an abstract level or when you simply close your eyes and attempt to locate self in space and time?

          March 11, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Those with a false man made understanding of God run the race before them with fear."

          First, all gods are man made, and second, this would apply to anyone who believes in a god or gods.
          I have never heard of any gods that did not have some form of wrath. Humans create gods, and they project their emotions on them.

          Still no sign of any gods.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • believerfred

          igaftr
          You are not looking for a "sign" of God you are looking for a sign of god or gods and that is all you will find. This again speaks to the Divine Word of God as it is addressed in Isaiah. The signs of god and gods are man made and only fit your own personal preconceived desires even if you should stumble across something that looks supernatural. With the exception of Saul of Tarsus, in pursuit of Christians to kill, most find what they are seeking. Then again Saul of Tarsus was seeking to prove his understanding of God which Jesus appeared to overturn and he was blinded by the truth. Saul thought his "wrath" against Christians somehow justified. Man's wrath is seldom justified which is why it is written vengeance is mine says the Lord. That vengeance comes after mankind did what man does to innocence. Jesus the vision of innocence and purity received the full wrath of God on the cross in order to save your soul. I cannot imagine what else God could do to redeem the lost. Perhaps that is why Jesus said on the Cross "it is finished" and gave up his spirit.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
      • believerfred

        Atheism is simply the extension of fatalism which is the only possible result of an accidental existence out of a random and mathematically improbable existence of awareness out of an abyss. All I can say is what the hell are you guys thinking or better yet drinking.

        March 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
    • believerfred

      The God of Abraham was filled with hope and promise. As the scripture would assure that hope and promise was fulfilled. Careful note would observe that promise land was not entered in Abrahams lifetime and even Moses dies before entering the promised land. That leaves us with hope in the present a hope in the promises of God. It is a privilege to have that hope and it is that hope which has sustained mankind (Adam in Hebrew pl) for all known history. Men with hope are blessed while those without hope need blessing. It is Jesus that clarified "blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of God. This was Divine to say the least. It is present tense as theirs IS the kingdom of God. Those who realize they need a Savior and those who realize their hopelessness without God then cry out will find hope.
      There is nothing comparable to the hope given in Christ

      March 11, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
  19. bostontola

    Dalahast said he was skeptical of my guesses. He should be, I am. People should be skeptical of all guesses, even educated guesses.

    God. This is the most pervasive guess in history. There have been thousands of God guesses all over the map. Even believers find most to be ridiculous. But not theirs. They have trust and confidence in theirs. God is the biggest guess ever, has no objective evidence to support any of them. But no skepticism for theirs. But very quick to be skeptical of the gaps in science that conflict with their beliefs.

    March 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I'm skeptical at your guess that God is the most pervasive guess in history. That sounds like a personal statement. Something one might read on a religious blog by a non-religious person. I know a lot of people don't agree with that opinion.

      March 11, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
      • igaftr

        Since there is no evidence of any gods, gods are a guess.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I get it. You are an atheist. You don't believe in God. You have no evidence.

          I'm not an atheist. I do believe in God. I do have evidence. If I didn't have evidence, I would be an atheist.

          I don't live by your standards. So what works for you: I'm happy for you. It doesn't work for me. Sorry.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • Doris

          @Dala

          I get it. You are an theist. You believe in God. You have no evidence.

          I'm not an theist. I do not believe in God. The evidence for God is laughable. If the evidence for God was not laughable, I might be an theist.

          I don't live by your standards. So what works for you: I'm happy for you. It doesn't work for me. Sorry.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • igaftr

          You explained your belief yesterday.
          You basically admitted you have no idea, you just word it in a way that means something to you that is different to the words you use.
          Belief is speculation. Since you do NOT know, and have accepted "evidence" that could have MANY possibilities that you ignore, it is not surprising to hear you attempt to defend your GUESS that gods exist.
          At least I have the integrety to admit when something is a belief, and when it is not.
          I do not know if there are any "gods", and neither does anyone else.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Oh, igaftr

          You sure do like to tell me what you think I believe.

          That is not what I basically admitted. I have yet to see you demonstrate integrity.

          Telling me you have integrity is easy. Demonstrating it is difficult.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • joey3467

          If the evidrence can't be shared with everyone in the world who wants to see it then it it not evidence, but just your personal opinion.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • igaftr

          OK dala master of the verbal tap dance.
          You claim that what you said yesterday is not what you menat....fine.

          Again, answer this question ...and do try to answer it directly. I know that you have been unable to answer direct questions directly, so let's have you give one more try.

          How do you know what you experience is a god at all, or is the experience/feeling just what you have defined as god?

          March 11, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have faith that what I have experienced comes from God. It is not at all comparable to what a few anti-theists on this blog have tried to rationalize it as. I have measured and tested it against others experiences, and none have compared.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • Doris

          @igaftr – a bit ago you ended a reply to Dala with:

          "I do not know if there are any "gods", and neither does anyone else."

          Not trying to change your intention, but I am curious how Dala would respond had that statement been instead worded as:

          "I do not know if there are any "gods", and no one has presented me with reasonable evidence to convince me that anyone else does either."

          Of course the theist can then question what is "reasonable evidence", but perhaps for someone like Dala, the turn-off is more your absolute claim for others. Just a thought.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • igaftr

          Doris
          No I've tried that with Dala too. He still claims you speak for everyone, since you don't know that no one has ever presented evidence for gods, could be someone has, but only those two ever saw it.
          Tap dance, tap dance, tap dance.
          I believe in god, I believe in Jesus, but I'm not religious...tap dance tap dance...I know you are but what Am I...tap dance tap dance.

          I'm done with him, since he clearly thinks that being consistant is not showing integrity, but tap dancing shows perfect integrity.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • bostontola

        Very weak dodge of the point. Do you disagree that the God hypothesis is a pervasive guess through long periods of our history? If not, the point stands.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't know. I've only been on this planet for 40 years. Any claims about long periods of our history and people's personal beliefs about God is a guess. Some might be good, educated guesses.

          But, of course, you are probably even skeptical of your own understanding of human history. If you weren't there to witness it. If you haven't spoken with a majority of the people you are trying to describe – one should be very skeptical.

          I'm not sure how your beliefs are any different from the beliefs you are describing that other's have held about God throughout history. You like to tell me you are skeptical, but you sure don't act like it. If something agrees with your preconceived notion about something: you run with it.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
        • bostontola

          I am very skeptical of history and who wrote it. But there is a lot of records of religious belief and different Gods from a large number of tribes and civilizations.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • bostontola

          I run with data and facts. I can extrapolate and be skeptical about the extrapolation. You run with belief based on no facts and have trust and confidence in it. That is the difference.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is just in your head, Bostontola.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • joey3467

          You don't have evidence. Your feelings about anything are not evidence of anything. If you evidence can't be presented to the rest of the world so that it can be evaluated it is not evidence.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I believe you feel that way. You don't have evidence either, but it doesn't stop you from imagining you do.

          March 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
  20. colin31714

    As to the science v. religion issue, it is rarely an either/or thing. Most people will act rationally and accept science in every aspect of their lives – except their religious beliefs. This is why many scientists (although decreasingly) were religious and why many believers accept science outside of the dark closet of their religious beliefs.

    But, when it comes to believing in gods, ghosts, spirits, angels, people rising from the dead, water turning into wine by magic/divine acts, mind-reading and the other silly stuff that comprises most religions, otherwise sane, rational people shut down all reason and believe things because it makes them feel good.

    March 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      How do you know otherwise sane and rational people shut down all reason because it makes them "feel good"? That sounds like more total speculation and guess work.

      March 11, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
      • ausphor

        Dala....
        Can't let that one go. You have often stated that since you found your congregation and the teachings od Christ that you are a far better person that you once were. If that is not a "feel good" scenario I don't know what is. I admire that you did find something to turn your life around but why do you think that you can criticize others that don't share your beliefs; that is what you do. Through a glass darkly.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not really. I criticize people that stereotype and generalize about religious people as being opponents to reason and logic. Basically it is just a few anti-theists and 1 deist that I criticize. Some can dish it out, but they can't take it.

          I have received evidence from other people that I am more helpful and responsible since I started following Jesus.

          It is really not about just "feeling good". If I just wanted to forget about ration and logic and feel good – I could easily call myself an atheist and tell you how great and logical I am. Or I could take medications that make me "feel good". Nope. I disagree with your assessment.

          You talk about my church way more than I do.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Well perhaps reason and logic were never your strong suit. You have stated that at one time you were part of a drug culture and in my view giving up one addiction for another is what you have done. So now you have the crutch of your congregation and a forgiving daddy figure god/jesus to lean on. One thing for sure it has accomplished making you pompous and arrogant while playing the hypocrite, to which you readily admit, since your rather pathetic epiphany.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You really have no idea what you are talking about. Way to jump to conclusions. I'm grateful to see not listening to you is actually logical and reasonable.

          For instance:

          I was never part of a drug culture. I experimented with drugs. I wasn't addicted. I didn't give up an addiction for another.

          Whenever I call someone a hypocrite, I have to admit I'm one, too. Yes. But I don't have to listen or accept what a fellow hypocrite tells me..

          March 11, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • midwest rail

          " I experimented with drugs "
          I'm glad I never did that. I was into full scale research.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          HAHAHA. Talk about not being able to take it, poor baby. I went to the trouble of reading the mission statement of the ELCA, you fall so short of that, I am surprised that they let you in the door.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ausphor

          WHAT? I read your deism website. So what?

          You really don't know what you are talking about. You just like to tell me things about what you imagine about me.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Yes, quite right, just what I read between the lines in your posts, active imagination. BTW that is exactly what you do in your posts against atheists, so sad you can't see your double standard, poor baby.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm not speaking to all atheists. Just the few that post on here. And even most on here I don't have a problem with.

          I work well with atheists in the real world. In online message boards, I have issues with a few. But really it isn't that big of deal.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
      • colin31714

        Well, look at the supernatural nonsense you believe in – prayers being answered, that you will live happily ever after you die, that a being that created the entire Universe has a personal interest in you. Teddy bear dreams cloaked in adult garments.

        March 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, that is what you imagine I believe. That is a hostile anti-theists viewpoint. Just because you share that viewpoint with a few others doesn't make it true or accurate.

          March 11, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Dalahast:
          Do you believe that the God of Abraham is anthropocentric?

          March 11, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes.

          March 11, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          So the being that created the entire Universe has a personal interest in humans.
          Do you believe that Heaven exists? If so, then said God will reward you will happiness after you die...

          March 11, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Define heaven.

          Certain verses in the Bible make it clear that God's ways are not our ways. So your notion that heaven is being rewarded with happiness may not be accurate. For me, heaven is where God dwells. It is eternal, not confined to time like we know it. But it also exceeds my human understanding. But I have faith that God knows what is best for us. And acts justly on that knowledge.

          I don't have a clearcut definition of heaven. I really don't think about it too much, because it is mysterious. Even the likelihood that we just die and that is it is very mysterious and doesn't answer many questions for me.

          March 11, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
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.