home
RSS
March 13th, 2014
09:49 AM ET

soundoff (374 Responses)
  1. Reality

    A revelation in less than two seconds:

    Jesus was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    And Francis will not be able to change that so his religion is bogus.

    March 14, 2014 at 9:16 am |
    • Sean

      St. Thomas Aquinas says:
      In the midst of the tyranny of the persecutors, an innumerable throng of people, both simple and learned, flocked to the Christian faith. In this faith there are truths proclaimed that surpass every human intellect; the pleasures of the flesh are curbed; it is taught that the things of the world should be spurned. Now, for the minds of mortal men to assent to these things is the greatest of miracles....This wonderful conversion of the world to the Christian faith is the clearest witness....For it would be truly more wonderful than all signs if the world had been led by simple and humble men to believe such lofty truths, to accomplish such difficult actions, and to have such high hopes. (Summa Contra Gentiles, I, 6)

      March 14, 2014 at 9:30 am |
      • MidwestKen

        @sean,
        1) less than 1/2 the world is Christian.
        2) truth is not subject to popular opinion.

        March 14, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
    • Sean

      Scholars have successfully negated all notions of conspiracy theories that have been floating around for over 2000 years now. 🙂

      March 14, 2014 at 9:33 am |
      • Doris

        Well we're in the information age now. Things are a bit different. I don't think the numbers in the most civilized parts of the world reflect your enthusiasm.

        March 14, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • Doris

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/catholic-church-us-priest-shortage-anglican-converts_n_2924327.html

          March 14, 2014 at 9:45 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Ummm....no they haven't. Any conspiracy is more probable than the calims of the bible.

        March 14, 2014 at 9:59 am |
      • Sean

        Adding to the original post, these notions have been there since the time of resurrection. In fact, is recorded in the Bible.

        For over 20 centuries scholars have studied every possible conspiracy theory that a skeptic might have come up with and successfully repudiated spurious claims.

        It's amazing that Christianity is the only religion today that people spend so much time on debating, it's good in that it helps people understand the truth. Some people actually spend their entire waking moments solely dedicated to discussing Christianity.

        🙂

        March 14, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Absolute garbage. The only "scholars" that have shot down conspiracy theories are apologists who have a conclusion they are trying to prove...they are not exactly credible.

          Here are a couple of facts.

          No one knows where the "empty tomb" is/was or even if there was an empty tomb.

          The only reference to the incident is the bible...and the bible is not a reliable historical source.

          The Book of Mormon does not relate history because the Book of Mormon "says so" ....same goes for the bible.

          The reason this is still debated is because Christians and Christianity is really good at disseminating disinformation. And you are proof.

          March 14, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • Sean

          You seem to be confused, not sure if it is a deliberate attempt to stay ignorant. Do yourself a favor and understand who Biblical Scholars are.

          March 14, 2014 at 11:45 am |
        • Akira

          Lemme guess, Sean...the ones who confirm your bias?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • otoh2

          Sean,

          And yet, the vast, vast majority of the people who were living in Jerusalem and environs at that time, who were right there on the spot, did not believe that this guy was a god, or anything extra-special.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Do yourself a favor and understand the difference between an apologist and biblical scholar. While they are not mutally exclusive listening to only the apologists keeps you ignorant.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • believerfred

          Blessed Cheesemaker
          And how is remaining intentionally blind to the overwhelming evidence of the power in the Word of God not a sign of ignorance?

          March 14, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          A suggestion for skeptics is to go watch a debate on YouTube between Bart Ehrman and Michael Liconia and see what historical data that skeptical historian Bart Ehrman concedes. In fact, there is much historical data that skeptical scholars will agree to surrounding the events of the resurrection. I suggest a book called "The Case for the Resurrection" by Gary Habermas. It gives data that the majority of skeptics and believing scholars both agree on concerning the historical events surrounding the resurrection.

          March 14, 2014 at 11:44 pm |
        • observer

          Sean

          "It's amazing that Christianity is the only religion today that people spend so much time on debating"

          It probably wouldn't be the case if the Bible contained fewer contradictions, errors, nonsense, and hypocrisy.

          March 16, 2014 at 12:48 am |
    • Reality

      Saving Christians like Sean from the Resurrection Con :

      From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

      Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

      To wit;

      From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:

      "Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
      Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.

      Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

      Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

      The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

      Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "

      "In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
      http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

      With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

      o An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
      o
      p.4
      o "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

      o p.168. by Ted Peters:
      Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "

      o So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

      ,

      March 15, 2014 at 7:04 am |
  2. Sean

    The catholic church needs a pope like pope Francis who infuses energy, vitality, concern for mankind, serving as an instrument of peace and who is able to draw people's attention to the importance of the family unit.

    From what we've seen so far, this pope has just done that!

    March 14, 2014 at 9:10 am |
  3. Vic

    Early on in his first year, Pope Francis called upon the church to not focus on prohibition wars. I believe that's the key in reviving the Christian church in total.

    Therefore, I believe the Christian Church shall invite people to "Believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Personal Savior" and WITHOUT JUDGEMENT NOR CONDEMNATION. That's our "Faith," "Love and Salvation," and the "Dispensation of Grace." That is the "New Covenant/Testament." Jesus Christ is our focus.

    That way, people will flock back to the church.

    March 14, 2014 at 7:33 am |
    • midwest rail

      Without judgement ? How about spreading disinformation, Vic ? Does that count as "loving and non-judgemental" ? You know, disinformation like " and I notice that there is heavy recruiting in that direction as though it is a choice."

      March 14, 2014 at 7:55 am |
      • Vic

        That's not misinformation. That's what's happening at the opposite end of the spectrum. Another form of extremism.

        Here is the post:
        http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/comment-page-17/#comment-2962436

        March 14, 2014 at 8:12 am |
        • midwest rail

          Absolute nonsense. When a str8 couple walking down the street holds hands, are they recruiting ? Since the vast majority of relationships on film, television, stage, etc are str8 relationships, is that recruiting ? The opinion of one woman in an audience from an 8 year old talk show is NOT evidence of recruiting, Vic. That you think it is, is quite telling.

          March 14, 2014 at 8:16 am |
        • Vic

          The type of show of affection in public you describe is a flow of the natural majority, that's not recruiting.

          The Nightline quote is one testimony, I noted that I have my own observations in my post.

          Here is the thing:

          I have no problem with anyone being who they are, I believe in Equal Rights. What I pointed out is about extremism, that could be in any direction.

          March 14, 2014 at 8:24 am |
        • midwest rail

          If you were merely pointing out extremism, which could be in any direction, why did you fail (quite conveniently) to make that distinction in your original post ?

          March 14, 2014 at 8:27 am |
        • Vic

          Read the very second sentence of my post.

          March 14, 2014 at 8:33 am |
        • Vic

          Read the very second sentence of my post.

          http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/comment-page-17/#comment-2962436

          March 14, 2014 at 8:34 am |
        • Vic

          "Second Line"

          March 14, 2014 at 8:36 am |
        • midwest rail

          My mistake, yes you did say extremism was wrong in any direction. So let's explore further. What form does this alleged recruiting take ? Merely saying that it exists is easy.

          March 14, 2014 at 8:40 am |
        • Vic

          This is a sensitive topic, and I cannot share details in an effort to not divulge personal information. I post here as anonymous, and I would like to remain so, incognito, if you will.

          March 14, 2014 at 8:48 am |
        • midwest rail

          Fair enough, Vic – how about we discuss this line, then ?
          " The type of show of affection in public you describe is a flow of the natural majority, that's not recruiting. "
          Merely because it is natural for the majority is irrelevant. If one is attracted to a member of the same gender, that is natural for them. Being who they are is not a form of recruiting.

          March 14, 2014 at 8:53 am |
        • Vic

          I appreciate that.

          I meant to include that in general, show of affection is not what I am referring to as recruiting.

          March 14, 2014 at 9:00 am |
        • midwest rail

          I am glad we can agree on that much, Vic. My apologies if I struck a nerve, it was not my intention to make you uncomfortable about sensitive information.Though we often disagree, I will always respect your right to privacy and anonymity.

          March 14, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • Vic

          Likewise.

          I appreciate your monicker a lot.

          March 14, 2014 at 9:12 am |
        • joey3467

          Vic, I saw that you claimed gays are recruiting, but I must have missed where you gave the specific example of such.

          March 14, 2014 at 9:21 am |
        • Akira

          Ted left Nightline in 2005. I should hope that in the interim, people would have become more educated.
          Anecdotal without a link to the clip is meaningless.
          And that is no more testimony that the guests on Povich are giving testimony.

          I seem to remember buses coming into neighborhoods and bribing children with hamburgers and soda if they would go right then with them to their Church.
          As a youngster, that sounded very good.
          Yes, this happened to me.

          Now THAT'S recruitment.

          March 14, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • Akira

          "This is a sensitive topic, and I cannot share details in an effort to not divulge personal information. I post here as anonymous, and I would like to remain so, incognito, if you will."

          While I can respect that, making outrageous claims and hiding behind that seems...disingenuous.

          Tantamount to...telling a falsehood. I wouldn't like to believe you'd be capable of doing that, so it's probably best not to make the claim if you can't back it up with tangible evidence.

          March 14, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • joey3467

          By not presenting us with an example it seems like this is all in your head. Why are you so afraid of gay people, Vic?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
    • Sean

      Nicely written comment!

      March 14, 2014 at 9:05 am |
      • Vic

        Thank you.

        March 14, 2014 at 9:23 am |
        • Sean

          Was referring to this part of your comment:

          " I believe the Christian Church shall invite people to "Believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Personal Savior" and WITHOUT JUDGEMENT NOR CONDEMNATION. That's our "Faith," "Love and Salvation," and the "Dispensation of Grace." That is the "New Covenant/Testament." Jesus Christ is our focus.

          That way, people will flock back to the church."

          Very nicely written!

          March 14, 2014 at 9:25 am |
        • Vic

          God bless.

          March 14, 2014 at 9:37 am |
  4. otoh2

    In other news elsewhere on the religion beat:

    Joel Osteen's Church in Houston was robbed of $600,000 in cash, checks and credit cards - the 'take' from last weekend's services! $600,000 !

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/600K-stolen-from-Lakewood-Church-5306422.php?cmpid=htx

    March 14, 2014 at 3:22 am |
    • Doris

      That's a lot of "take". I'm sure there are a lot of churches though across the country that have that kind of "take". I call them walmarts of "redemption".

      March 14, 2014 at 8:05 am |
    • otoh2

      fyi, I posted this last night before the new Belief Blog article appeared, since we seem to be so tired of Pope articles. Glad the editors picked up on it...

      March 14, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
  5. Reality

    Putting Francis in terms of the 21st century:

    Only for the new members-

    The Apostles' Creed 2014 (updated by yours truly based on the studies of NT historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven?????

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
    many semi-fiction writers. A bodily resurrection and
    ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (References used are available upon request.)

    March 13, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
  6. new-man

    "It's when you realize who you are, that you realize that you were behaving below your nature - you were living short of your potential."

    Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
    14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

    The gospel of the kingdom is the ultimate reign of Christ demonstrated in some sphere right here, right now. It means God's will can be done here on earth as it is in heaven.

    March 13, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Really ? Seriously ?
      Tell that to the victims of the tsunami 2 years ago.
      Who's in charge here again ?

      March 13, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
  7. joey3467

    If god isn't capable of defeating an army with iron chariots what the hell does he think he is going to be able to accomplish when he returns and has to face off against planes and tanks?

    March 13, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
  8. Dyslexic doG

    Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope ... hey CNN, can we have another Pope story please? 3 a day just isn't enough for me!

    March 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
  9. Randy

    The past year has seen many great pope Francis moments. Although hard to rank, these are some moments that are noteworthy:

    Favorite pope Francis picture moment: His selfie.

    His most compassionate moment-Hugging the man with Fibromyalgia.

    The most funny moment-Pope meets the adorable bawling toddler dressed as Pope.

    Congratulations to the pope on his first anniversary and wishing him many more years!

    March 13, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
    • doobzz

      He took a picture of himself and hugged a guy and a kid. How noteworthy.

      March 13, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
      • Alias

        He is much more likable than the nazi before him.
        This pope actually seems to understand how christians are supposed to think.

        March 13, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
        • doobzz

          Every politician hugs babies and takes pictures with the little people. Nothing christian about it, just the usual PR.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:00 am |
    • realbuckyball

      It wasn't Fibromyalgia, it was Neurofibromatosis.

      The bishop of Rome was EQUAL to the other patriarchs until Rome asserted primacy, and caused the Great Schism.

      March 13, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
  10. Randy

    Kudos to the editors for ensuring people abide by the TOS. The new format is a lot better now, interacting with trolls was a very unpleasant experience ,hitherto.

    Thank you,editors!

    March 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • Doris

      One problem was improved. But the hidden word filter rejecting posts for words like Consti-tution has always been a joke. Did they think people would not be discussing church and state here? I wonder how many first-time posters gave up the first time because there was no clue why their posts were rejected. Simply ridiculous.

      March 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
      • Randy

        Don't see any merit in your complaint, this is an article about Pope's first anniversary, since he took office. People wouldn't necessarily use the word "const/tution" when posting here.The restriction for certain word combos being banned has been around for years and some articles have had 9000 plus comments in the past with people getting used to getting past the word filter.

        Very glad to see the editors enforcing the rules of conduct as set forth in the TOS. It was a long needed change for this blog.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • Doris

          I doubt seriously that the word filter is programmed to be article-specific. And the comment count doesn't say much about the spread of opinion that it could represent if new posters weren't immediately turned away without warning by an ill-conceived function that not only doesn't warn, but doesn't explain why the posting just "doesn't seem to work".

          March 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • Akira

          This word filter is a WP thing, which covers ALL CNN blogs. And it's equally annoying whether it's on the Belief Blog or on Political sticker.

          And the trolls are still here. One step at a time, I suppose.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • Akira

          Randy,
          I can still get past the word filter. Constitution. Most of us can.
          We shouldn't have to because some bored 44 year old troll has never grown up...

          March 13, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Doris

          Randy: "The restriction for certain word combos being banned has been around for years"

          I'm guessing you haven't read Shirley Jackson's The Lottery....

          March 13, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Actually Randy, the Constitution is a very important consideration when it comes to religion in this country. Far too many christians have forgotten (or never knew) that the Constitution, not the bible, is the basis of the laws in the United States. It has been - and will continue to be - mentioned on this blog when necessary.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:08 am |
    • otoh2

      Randy,

      I just checked the TOS again. I don't see a single peep in there about the automatic word filter and its silly v.agaries.

      March 13, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Are you saying it is not properly docu.mented?

        March 13, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
  11. Randy

    Pope Francis has clearly established himself as the "people's pope" since he took office.

    Some of his tweets are an indication as to where his heart is when it comes to people and his faith.

    Pope Francis ‏@Pontifex

    Please pray for me.

    Pope Francis ‏@Pontifex · Mar 8
    The challenge for Christian spouses:remaining together, knowing how to love one another always, and doing so in a way that their love grows.

    Pope Francis ‏@Pontifex · Mar 7
    Our deepest joy comes from Christ: remaining with him, walking with him, being his disciples.

    Pope Francis ‏@Pontifex · Mar 6
    Let us pray for Christians who are victims of persecution, so that they may know how to respond to evil with good.

    March 13, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
  12. Robert Brown

    http://www.nbcnews.com/#/politics/politics-news/losing-faith-21-percent-say-religion-not-important-n51256

    Twenty one percent of respondents said that religion is “not that important” to their lives, compared to 16 percent who said the same in 1999. In 1997, 14 percent of Americans said religion did not play an important role in their lives.

    The poll showed that these less religious Americans are more likely to be men, have an income over $75,000, to live in the Northeast or West and to be under the age of 35.

    More than half of Americans still place a major emphasis on their faith. Thirteen percent of respondents in the new poll said that religion is the most important aspect of their lives, and 41 percent said it is “very important.”

    March 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
    • Akira

      Baby boomers are aging. It comes as no surprise to me that Millenials place less importance on religion in their lives; they are also the first generation in which the 'net had made a significant impact.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Whats your point Bob? We know America is trending away from organized religion, this is not news. In fact it's not even very surprising as our technological advancements have given more and more people access to education and information so the populace is more informed about science and discoveries that have effectively turned the lights out on organized religion. And this is a very good thing.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • Robert Brown

        I think it is sad that young men are turning away from God.

        March 13, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • Akira

          Perhaps it's the way the message is presented.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          That's funny..."turning away from God" when there is no evidence of such a thing existing.

          It's too bad that so many young people are turning away from belief the world is flat, is about the same thing.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • joey3467

          Then Christianity as a whole needs to change.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • sam stone

          C'mon Robbie, they are getting more logical, turning away from the iron age mythology you have gobbled up so readily.

          Put on your big boy pants and accept that people are different.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I live in the midwest where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a church and turned away from your god in my 40's.

          It is not sad at all, I have never been more content with my "spiritual" life. It is refreshing to know younger people are shedding the constraints and lies of religion.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:05 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Too bad you didn't break it down by age.
      Actually the entire "popularity" contest is a form of the ad populum fallacy.
      Who cares ? 99.99 % of human once thought the Earth was flat. They were all wrong.

      March 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
  13. Doris

    Why even bother having a comment section for articles if you're going to reject a word such as Const-itution, CNN. Did you not think that people might discuss separation of church and state here? This blog has always been a joke in that regard. The same goes for the many other word patterns that prevent posting just because by themselves, they may be derogatory to some. I imagine there are plenty of first-time posters whose views have never been seen because they couldn't get past the first step of getting by this inane sensitive word filter function. The blog should just be converted to the DISQUS format if it can't be made more usable. It's really quite ridiculous.

    March 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
    • Akira

      I do not understand why they have this format when the majority of stories on CNN use the Discus format, anyway.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
  14. Rynomite

    Hmm why was my post deleted?

    March 13, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
    • Doris

      Did it disappear without ever showing? That would be the word filter. I had one on the other article come up saying in moderation today that still shows that way because of the word filter thing which is odd because it used to only show in moderation if it got deleted by their program or someone at CNN. The second post I made (with correction to sensitive words) does show below the one still saying in moderation, so the behavior does seem to be different now aside from the absence of the Report Abuse feature.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • ausphor

        Doris
        Me also @ 11:46, although I posted s c.um, the moderator has grabbed it, strange.

        March 13, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
      • Akira

        If they're going to play this game again, they need to visit Salero's posts.

        March 13, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
      • ausphor

        Doris
        Magic or divine intervention!!!

        March 13, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
    • Akira

      I saw it, Ryno. It was indeed deleted.

      March 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • ausphor

        Interesting the WP filter seems to have morphed. I can now use assume, assist and nice ass with impunity, but the word that both Doris and I used even with the required space had our posts deleted, rhymes with come.

        March 13, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • otoh2

          ausphor,

          I'm not certain, but I think that assume, assist, etc. were always accepted (you couldn't say the donkey one - jack- though). Disqus has an automated word checker that runs periodically and catches and deletes posts with various naughty words, and even some 'doctored' variations of them. Maybe they're trying something like that here...?

          March 13, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • Akira

          I suppose you can rewrite that word as scome, but a better way would be to stop thinking that their users are 12 years old and giggling madly over the word 'tit' hidden in the word 'constitution.'

          Or that we don't know some HTML, but have to employ it because their word filters are absurd.

          March 13, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
    • Alias

      CNN filters fro content as well as some words.
      I can get past the word filter – constitution.
      I have, however been banned from this site for rambling too much about Israel.

      March 13, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
      • Doris

        "too much about Israel."

        in what way, Alias?

        March 13, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • Alias

          Compared the way they treat the Palistinians to how a particular evil man once treated them, for example.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • Alias

          I may have also suggested that not allowing any industry, or autonomy, or hope to a group of people could lead some individuals to lash out violently.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • Doris

          Hmm. I would recommend not using the comparison to past history to describe the current situation. That probably will only infuriate people. But it is a tough situation. I know is some cases people have been physically separated from access to hospitals, water, and other primary needs. On the other hand sometimes we do hear some stories where people from all three faiths work together – although I don't know how common and in which places that might be.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
  15. ausphor

    Do PR departments have an association that hands out awards? If so Frankie's group should take the top prize. A great deal of praise by living more like a Jesuit than a Prince of the church but he has been doing that for decades without the publicity.

    March 13, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
    • Akira

      All you have to do is check out all of the previous Pope's and their proclivity to overdress and you'll see why this one is different...no red Prada shoes, for one, lol.

      March 13, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
      • ausphor

        Akira
        Funny thing is if you go into a Vatican gift shop and want to buy Jesus on a stick or the virgin Mary in a snow globe, you will find a made in China label, profit.

        March 13, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • Akira

          The Snow Globe Mary makes me laugh; and it's so convenient that the gift shop takes debit cards...

          March 13, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        It isn't that this pope is so great, it's just that all prior popes set the bar so low that when we get one who is halfway normal and acts like a compassionate human instead of a gilded p rick everyone gets all excited.

        March 13, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
      • ausphor

        We live in a world of celebrity. Become a media darling and you have it made; Frankie is trying but getting results from the rest of the hierarchy in their gilded cages may prove impossible.

        March 13, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
      • doobzz

        Agree with the low standards to begin with. Not wearing expensive, custom made designer shoes is suddenly a huge deal, like that makes him just a slob like one of us.

        March 13, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
  16. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    March 13, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • Doris

      (Some people spread garlic around to ward off vampires. I just like lots of it in a good fresh guacamole.)

      March 13, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
    • ausphor

      Vic
      Anything to say about the topic?

      March 13, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
    • doobzz

      Do you have any other incantations?

      March 13, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
    • new-man

      ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
      Love it.
      Jesus Christ is the Lord of Nations, He is the desirer of Nations.

      "Every Nation will have a demonstration of the gospel of the kingdom, where so far we've given them a gospel of salvation."

      March 13, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
      • ausphor

        new-man
        Yours and Vic's Jesus Christ is Lord of the nations is really quite incompetent since they only managed to delude 2 in 7 people and most of the nations couldn't give a god damn about your particular god. Addictions can be cured if you are willing to admit you have one.

        March 13, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          When they are a majority in any region they claim it is because they are the holders of truth and righteousness. When they are the minority in any region they claim it is because they are being persecuted as prophesied.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
    • Bob

      Vic, your Jesus belief is ludicrous and unfounded.

      How is it that your omnipotent being couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?

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

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

      March 13, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Bob,

        "And how was Jesus’ death a “sacrifice”, when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers?"

        You seem to not understand that Jesus is God Himself. He is not a created being.

        March 13, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          If Jesus is with your god in heaven, there was no sacrifice by definition. A sacrifice is giving something up for good.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Hawaii,

          You need to read the definition for sacrifice.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          Tell me, did anyone else who sacrificed something to god in the bible get their sacrifices back?

          March 13, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          btw

          sac·ri·fice
          ˈsakrəˌfīs/Submit
          noun
          noun: sacrifice; plural noun: sacrifices
          1.
          an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure.
          "they offer sacrifices to the spirits"
          synonyms: ritual slaughter, offering, oblation, immolation More
          an animal, person, or object offered in a sacrifice.
          synonyms: (votive) offering, burnt offering, gift, oblation More
          an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy.

          Strange, nothing about a temporary displacement or getting back what's sacrificed.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Jesus is always interceding for believers. He paid the price on the cross that He would always live to intercede.

          Also, how many of the animal sacrifices resurrected?

          March 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          I see nothing in your definition validating your claim "A sacrifice is giving something up for good"

          March 13, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • Vic

          The Creator and the creature are NEVER equal, conceptually and in reality.

          God's Sovereign Being, Will, Wisdom, and Command, are of the Divine Realm that is above and outside of us and our realm.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          If you want to play that game, I see nothing in the definition that says you get a sacrifice back.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          You tried to impose something into the definition that is not there. With that being said, returning to the conversation we were having the other night, do you believe in objective morality?

          March 13, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • Doris

          "do you believe in objective morality?"

          Define objective morality a bit further. The way you see it.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          Please give ONE REASON why anyone should listen to you or answer any of your questions, when you don't answer other people's questions.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • observernow

          Vic,

          Do you condemn Christians for ALL s3xual activity that cannot possibly result in pregnancy as "NATURE" requires?

          March 13, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • sam stone

          "God's Sovereign Being, Will, Wisdom, and Command, are of the Divine Realm that is above and outside of us and our realm."

          More unprovable allegations, Vic.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          "Objective morality is morality that is valid and binding, independent of personal opinion. As an example, to say that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil is to say that it is evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was morally good. Even if the Nazis had won World War II and either killed all opposers or brainwashed everyone into believing that the Holocaust was morally good, it would still be morally evil."

          March 13, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          "Objective morality" has NOTHING to do with God or the Bible, which is full of examples that God doesn't believe in "objective morality".

          March 13, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • Doris

          Ah, tf, then I have a problem with the plausibility of your definition in reality. And that is, how do you explain the "independency" of such a concept? (I assume for the sake of this discussion, by "personal", you mean an individual, or a group or a society.)

          March 13, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer, what is your best objection to objective morality being grounded in God?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:03 pm |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          God KILLED people for looking and touching things after being told not to. Everyone understands that there likely should be PUNISHMENTS for failing to obey laws, but it took God to think it was worth KILLING PEOPLE.

          'Objective morality" shows that much of God's work would be considered IMMORAL.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
        • Vic

          observernow,

          As a Christian, I DO NOT judge NOR condemn anyone.

          As for Christians, I believe we are saved by the Grace of God through Faith ALONE in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, regardless of our sins. God's Grace is serious business.

          p.s. You can go to your Account Settings, Profile, and then change your Public Display Name.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          "And that is, how do you explain the “independency” of such a concept? "

          I'll take a shot at what I believe you are asking but if I miss the meaning, I apologize. On my view, objective morality doesn't change because it is grounded in the unchanging nature of God.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • Doris

          And my argument is that unless you can prove your God or some other god or force yet unknown to man has defined objective morality, then I don't see how you can prove or even demonstrate that it exists on it own (unattached to the human consciousness, whether it be individual or collective in some grouping).

          March 13, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • observernow

          truthfollower01,

          Would "objective morality" say it is fine to KILL SOMEONE for not obeying when told not to look at something?

          YES or NO?
          .

          March 13, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris, so then you don't believe in objective morality as I defined?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • Doris

          OK I just caught up with that last post now. Well for a believer, I think that's the only way to look at it. Of course I would contend that it is unlikely that the Abrahamic God exists, and therefore the subjective morality of different groupings of people, including believers reflect the societal/legal/theistic interpretations of those groups, no matter the size of the group.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:19 pm |
        • Doris

          No, I don't – I think my last reply explains my position on that.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
        • Doris

          I think another way to look at it from my perspective is to say I don't believe the Abrahamic God exists, therefore all the characteristics associated with (and perhaps necessary from a theistic point of view) that deity are moot (free will, objective morality, etc.).

          March 13, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          Let's say that a child grew up in Nazi Germany and was taught that Jews were less than human and that it was morally good to murder them. On the view you give, is this child wrong in thinking that these actions are morally good?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          We don't know if Hitler killed people for LOOKING at things they were told not to, but GOD DID.

          So would what God did be approved as "objective morality"/

          YES or NO?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
        • Doris

          I'll be glad to continue this, but just beware that every time it seems someone starts using that specific case as an example, CNN gets all jiggy and deleting threads just because the that event in history is even mentioned.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          @follower

          Aww do you not want to talk about the sacrifice anymore after I point out your little game?
          Either way, depending on how you define morality, I may agree that it can be objective.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Your trying to put man in God's position.

          I want to first make a point that I believe some atheists misunderstand when they think God must keep the moral commands He gives us. I’ll give you an example. If I took the life of an innocent person it would be murder. Therefore, I do not have the right to take the life of an innocent life. But why think God is restricted from taking life? Can not the One who gives life take it as He pleases? I agree with William Lane Craig when he said that “God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative." If I were to go outside this afternoon and a bullet should strike me, killing me, God has certainly done me no wrong. Remember that each breath of air we take is dependent upon God giving us this.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          So now we all know follower thinks that might makes right.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Yes we agree that God has no morals. He obviously does NOT set a good example for OBJECTIVE MORALITY either.

          "Do as I say, not as I do". Good thinking.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • Doris

          tf: "Let's say that a child grew up in Nazi Germany and was taught that Jews were less than human and that it was morally good to murder them. On the view you give, is this child wrong in thinking that these actions are morally good?"

          observer has a good question, but the problem with your example is that it's like a loaded question. The key word in your question is "wrong". From my perspective not only is "morally good" subjective, but so is "wrong". I don't think either of us knows anyone who would ever say the child is "right" because of how they were raised, but just because that opinion seems to be universal in this day and age in the civilized world, that doesn't me it is not from consensus.

          A better way to look at it is a case of rape. For say two simple organisms, not humans, rape may be a normal way of natural life. Humans have learned that it is harmful to inflict that upon one another. But is there some objective "truth" that exists on its own in the world that says rape is "wrong"? I contend that there is not. I contend that humans subjectively have reached and continue to arrive at a value judgment for that and that it must be taught to the young (from whatever source you take if from). I have no problem with objective or divine "truths" including morality if you can prove your God as the source of it.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Hawaii,

          I thought the definitional topic was done but if you posted something further that I missed I apologize.

          “Objective morality is morality that is valid and binding, independent of personal opinion. As an example, to say that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil is to say that it is evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was morally good. Even if the Nazis had won World War II and either killed all opposers or brainwashed everyone into believing that the Holocaust was morally good, it would still be morally evil.”

          Do you think objective morality exists?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          You have poorly defined it. How do we measure the morality of something? Harm? Your god?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
        • Doris

          typo correction for my last post: "that doesn't mean..."

          March 13, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Hawaii,

          God can only act according to His nature. The question is, "are the acts of God recorded in the Bible objectively morally good?" I believe they are. I don't believe they can be shown to be anything but morally good.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Does "objective morality" support slavery including how much you can beat your slaves without punishment?

          God supports it. So does "objective morality" support it too? Do you?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • Doris

          I would also ask "who is God's ethical adviser?".

          I've asked that before and the usual response is that by definition, God has no one to answer to, no boss, etc. etc.
          But can you prove it? Can you prove that if this God does in fact exist that it isn't just haphazardly trying to clean up from a much meaner boss who inflicts all the evil in the world and doesn't like to leave calling cards? Can you prove that isn't the case from the flaws of our existence any better than you can prove the existence of this Abrahamic God?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
        • observer

          "God can only act according to His nature. The question is, "are the acts of God recorded in the Bible objectively morally good?" I believe they are. I don't believe they can be shown to be anything but morally good" -Truthfollower01.

          So Truthfollower sees nothing MORALLY wrong with KILLING children for making fun of an old man; beating slaves without punishment; killing people just for looking at things; killing people for just touching things; etc.

          Sick. Pathetic. Disgusting. Inhumane.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:52 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          On atheism, "morally good"and "wrong"are subjective, you are correct. But isn't there something within you that says that even though the child believes this to be morally good because of legality (the Holocaust was legal), society and the culture he/she was raised in, that the child IS indeed wrong and that it is a morally evil act? If morality is subjective, you can't really say that the child is wrong in believing it's morally good to murder the Jewish people. Do you not see a problem with this?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:00 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          EVERYTHING that Hitler did would have been fine with you if GOD had done it.

          Right? YES or NO?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "EVERYTHING that Hitler did would have been fine with you if GOD had done it.

          Right? YES or NO"

          You could postulate a million plus similar scenarios: "if God commanded the Holocaust," "If God commanded Stalin to carry out his atrocities", etc." The issue with each of these scenarios, is that they present a false god who is not the Christian God. I don't see any reason on commenting on the actions of a false god. The Christian can affirm that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil. By rejecting God, the atheist is unable to do so

          March 14, 2014 at 12:11 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Yep. KILLING ALL BUT 8 PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is what a CHRISTIAN God does.

          lol. You are so totally failing in ANY LOGIC that you are embarrassing yourself.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:15 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "So Truthfollower sees nothing MORALLY wrong with KILLING children for making fun of an old man; beating slaves without punishment; killing people just for looking at things; killing people for just touching things; etc."

          We can discuss the above references you give above if you would like to draw conclusions but the big question I have is, on atheism, why are any of the above actions morally wrong?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:17 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "Yep. KILLING ALL BUT 8 PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is what a CHRISTIAN God does."

          I have defended my position on this many times. However, on atheism, why is this morally wrong to begin with?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          First of all, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. If ANYONE can prove God exists, I'll believe it.

          Christians aren't NEARLY as STUPID as you think they are. Most of them are bright enough to figure out that it's not a good idea to go around killing everyone. They don't need a 2,000-year-old book to figure that out for them, but if YOU do, I won't argue with you.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:21 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "The Christian can affirm that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil. By rejecting God, the atheist is unable to do so"

          Atheists have no interest in rejecting something they don't believe in. The atheist can affirm that morality always involves man/men's individual/collective ideals.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:22 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          You're dodging the question. Why, on atheism, is it morally wrong to go around killing people?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:28 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "........even though the child believes this to be morally good because of legality (the Holocaust was legal), society and the culture he/she was raised in, that the child IS indeed wrong and that it is a morally evil act?....."

          Of course, but I realize that the source of my subjective moral judgment for the situation comes from my education, what I was taught as a child, what I have learned through life about what it harmful for the body and mind of another person, etc. etc. – all subjective input. I interpret every positive/negative adjective you just used there to be something subjectively learned and adopted. Again I contend that in reality you are no different. Unless of course you can, as I said, prove the existence of the source of your alleged divine "truths".

          March 14, 2014 at 12:31 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Atheists, in general, use their intelligence and observation to realize the consequences of killing everyone.

          You are apparently claiming Christians don't have the INTELLIGENCE and observation capacity to figure this out. They aren't nearly as STUPID as you think. Are you that stupid yourself?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:32 am |
        • truthfollower01

          "Atheists, in general, use their intelligence and observation to realize the consequences of killing everyone."

          On atheism, when Hitler murders millions of the Jewish people, why are his actions morally evil? Because you or anyone else say they are? On atheism, Why is your view on morality any more superior to Hitler's?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • Doris

          And yet another way to look at it is to say I believe we both use subjective means and interpretation to arrive at our own judgments about morality. I use my education, understanding of current laws, history, etc. I imagine you, tf, you much of the same except you are also claiming you're receiving something divine to help you with these moral issues. I of course contend that what you are claiming there is still just a subjective interpretation of something you believe to be divinely inspired. So I would say, even if there is a God, which I don't believe, that you are still relying completely on subjectivity. I would contend that to prove me otherwise you would have to demonstrate that you are receiving divine guidance directly. Now how do you suppose you can demonstrate that objectively. So this brings us full circle to proving your source in order to give me reason to buy into the divine "truths", free will, yada yada yada...

          March 14, 2014 at 12:39 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          I've been answering all of your questions. Now it's time for you to answer some, if you don't RUN AWAY and HIDE as usual.

          Where do the morals come from that tell Christians that the Bible is WRONG to support killing unruly children or wrong to support selling daughters into slavery or wrong to allow beating women slaves without punishment?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:42 am |
        • hawaiiguest

          @follower

          You haven't answered my question. In what way do you want to measure morality?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:42 am |
        • hawaiiguest

          @follower

          Is that the only thing you can ever do? Fall back on Hitler to completely avoid actually answering any question posed to you?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:44 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          On the subjective view, the child is not really wrong. It's just a difference of personal opinions or personal taste. On the objective view with God as the Moral Law Giver, the child is wrong, regardless of if he/she thinks it morally good. You really can't say that the child is "wrong". It's just a difference of opinions. You can't really say that what Hitler did was morally wrong or evil. It's just a difference of opinions. Do you not see a problem with this?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:48 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Hawaii,

          "You haven’t answered my question. In what way do you want to measure morality?"

          I'm not sure what you mean. Please explain.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:49 am |
        • observer

          observer
          truthfollower01,

          Where do the morals come from that tell Christians that the Bible is WRONG to support killing unruly children or wrong to support selling daughters into slavery or wrong to allow beating women slaves without punishment?

          STUMPED?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:51 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "On atheism, when Hitler murders millions of the Jewish people, why are his actions morally evil? Because you or anyone else say they are? On atheism, Why is your view on morality any more superior to Hitler’s?"

          You didn't answer the above question I ended on.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          I've answered loads of your questions. Now you can answer mine.

          Where do the morals come from that tell Christians that the Bible is WRONG to support killing unruly children or wrong to support selling daughters into slavery or wrong to allow beating women slaves without punishment?

          STILL STUMPED?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:54 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "On the subjective view, the child is not really wrong. It's just a difference of personal opinions or personal taste. On the objective view with God as the Moral Law Giver, the child is wrong, regardless of if he/she thinks it morally good. You really can't say that the child is "wrong". It's just a difference of opinions. You can't really say that what Hitler did was morally wrong or evil. It's just a difference of opinions. Do you not see a problem with this?"

          Evidently you did understand my last posts – I'll copy them for your review:

          And yet another way to look at it is to say I believe we both use subjective means and interpretation to arrive at our own judgments about morality. I use my education, understanding of current laws, history, etc. I imagine you, tf, you much of the same except you are also claiming you're receiving something divine to help you with these moral issues. I of course contend that what you are claiming there is still just a subjective interpretation of something you believe to be divinely inspired. So I would say, even if there is a God, which I don't believe, that you are still relying completely on subjectivity. I would contend that to prove me otherwise you would have to demonstrate that you are receiving divine guidance directly. Now how do you suppose you can demonstrate that objectively? So this brings us full circle to proving your source in order to give me reason to buy into the divine "truths", free will, yada yada yada...

          So unless you can demonstrate the direct connection to your God to receive "truths", then I contend we are both using subjective means to ascertain what we think is "right" (education, history, societal influence, other groupings that give us a "warm fuzzy").

          March 14, 2014 at 1:03 am |
        • Doris

          ....Evidently you did NOT understand my last posts...

          March 14, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          "Where do the morals come from that tell Christians that the Bible is WRONG to support killing unruly children or wrong to support selling daughters into slavery or wrong to allow beating women slaves without punishment?"

          As you have done so often in the past, you seem to give a laundry list of things you apparently feel are morally evil, though you haven't shown why they're morally evil other than to appeal to your intelligence and observation(I.e. Your own personal opinion which, on atheism, carries equal authority as the opinions of Hitler or anyone else in the world). Please provide Bible references so context can be examined. I have recommended a book called "God is not a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan on multiple occasions that addresses many of the complaints that atheists wage against God's actions in the Old Testament. If you are actually interested in learning more about the complaints, I would suggest reading it.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:04 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          (Ex. 21:7-8) “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do” [God]

          Not one command requiring the daughter be of any minimal age. Not one word that she must agree to be sold.

          OBVIOUSLY you haven't read much of the Bible or you'd know these things.

          So do YOUR morals approve selling, say, 8-year-old daughters into slavery? YES or NO?

          March 14, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "though you haven't shown why they're morally evil other than to appeal to your intelligence and observation(I.e. Your own personal opinion which, on atheism, carries equal authority as the opinions of Hitler or anyone else in the world). Please provide Bible references so context can be examined."

          I won't speak for observer, but I just answered that for you (as to why and source of opinion). Based on my answer I would contend that yours is an opinion claimed, but not proven to be something other than an opinion and that it too carries equal authority as the opinions of Hitler or anyone else in the world. After all, it's much a matter of interpretation, right? That some Christians still sacrifice people to this day in parts of the world is a matter of interpretation of their God's moral imperatives, right?

          March 14, 2014 at 1:11 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Two things to note. Doris is much closer to the atheists true position on morality. Observer seems to want to desperately affirm objective morality and accuse God of heinous morals, but on atheism, morality is just personal opinion and as I indicated before, on atheism, Observers opinion on morality carries equal authority as that of Hitler or anyone else in the world.
          I do affirm objective morality and it can only be affirmed through God.

          Secondly, Doris,

          "That some Christians still sacrifice people to this day in parts of the world is a matter of interpretation of their God’s moral imperatives, right?"

          What Christians are you referring to that do this?

          March 14, 2014 at 1:19 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          (Ex. 21:7-8) “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do” [God]

          Not one command requiring the daughter be of any minimal age. Not one word that she must agree to be sold.

          Do YOUR morals approve selling, say, 8-year-old daughters into slavery? YES or NO?

          STILL STUMPED?

          March 14, 2014 at 1:21 am |
        • Doris

          The followers of Santa Muerte. They are large in number evidently. But I can pick many issues where Christians will not agree on moral issues which makes their general claim regarding objective morality "fishier" than it already sounds. Ultimately, it is important to note that ALL of your points about others and individuals having opinions on morality are moot if you can't demonstrate objectively a direct connection to your "God" whereby you claim you're receiving such moral guidance.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I've enjoyed the conversations tonight but I must pull myself away from here due to having to get up early tomorrow. Observer, I'll try to post tomorrow concerning your verse you listed. Redzoa, it's good to see you back on here. Good night all.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:27 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          You keep saying that same LIE every night and then don't answer questions.

          No problem. We see that you are a "Christian" who can't decide if selling an 8-year-old daughter into slavery is wrong.

          Well done. We see your TRUE MORALS.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:30 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I had a hard time resisting not commenting on this tonight.

          Exodus 21:7-11

          7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

          According to Paul Copan, "As we've seen earlier, this is another example of case law (casuistic law). Such regulations don't assume that the described states of affairs are ideal. Case law begins with specific examples that don't necessarily present best-case scenarios: "if two men quarrel" or "if someone strikes a man" are examples of case law. So the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions ("If a man sells his daughter...")"

          I just wanted to start the conversation. I will try to post much more tomorrow on this.

          March 14, 2014 at 2:14 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          (Ex. 21:7-8) “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do” [God]

          Not one command requiring the daughter be of any minimal age. Not one word that she must agree to be sold.

          So do YOUR morals approve selling, say, 8-year-old daughters into slavery? YES or NO?

          Still STUMPED!! Amazing. It's likely that atheists and agnostics would give an immediate "NO", but it takes a "Christian" HOURS to decide if they'd sell their 8-year-old daughter or not and they still don't know.

          How low-down can anyone get?

          March 14, 2014 at 2:20 am |
        • hawaiiguest

          @follower

          How much clearer can I get? By what measure do you determine something to be moral?
          Harm caused?
          Whatever your fairy tale book say?
          What your preacher says your book says?

          I asked this exact question before, and your only response was what you put above. On atheism blah blah blah dodge dodge won't answer.

          March 14, 2014 at 3:10 am |
        • joey3467

          It is already been proven that truthfollower believes in subjective morality. In that he feels there are cases where genocide can be considered moral.

          March 14, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Joey,

          "It is already been proven that truthfollower believes in subjective morality. In that he feels there are cases where genocide can be considered moral."

          Your logic is a non sequitur. Whoever said that genocide is objectively morally evil? It wasn't me.

          March 14, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          You rip out a verse, grossly misrepresent it, and then force a question based on an inaccurate translation on me to answer. I was planning on going further into depth concerning the actual scenario in the Bible that you partially referenced but I wonder if you are even looking for a real answer. Did you even read my post above where I began to answer?
          According to Paul Copan, "As we've seen earlier, this is another example of case law (casuistic law). Such regulations don't assume that the described states of affairs are ideal. Case law begins with specific examples that don't necessarily present best-case scenarios: "if two men quarrel" or "if someone strikes a man" are examples of case law. So the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions ("If a man sells his daughter...")"

          Are you just pulling the child being 8 years old out of the air? Please provide Biblical evidence for this.

          Please read the verses around the one you quote. I quoted them above.

          March 14, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Some additional points concerning our Exodus discussion.

          1. "even if conditions are less than ideal, the goal is to protect women in unfortunate" circu-mstances.

          2. "When a father sells his daughter, he's doing so out of economic desperation,"
          "the father is going this out if concern for his family, and Israel's laws provided a safety net for it's very poorest."
          "Voluntary selling was a matter of survival in harsh financial" circu-mstances.

          3. "As far as the marriageable daughter goes, a father would do his best to care for her as well. Here, he is trying to help his daughter find security in marriage;"

          – "If the man rejects the servant woman as his wife, she is to be given her freedom (redeemed/bought back).

          – "If his son wants to marry her, she is to be taken in as a family member and treated as a daughter."

          – "If the man marries another woman, the servant woman is to receive food, clothing and lodging"

          All quotes are from Paul Copan's book "God is not a Moral Monster."

          March 14, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
        • Doris

          Joey: "It is already been proven that truthfollower believes in subjective morality. In that he feels there are cases where genocide can be considered moral."

          truthfollower01: "Your logic is a non sequitur. Whoever said that genocide is objectively morally evil? It wasn't me."

          L O L

          March 15, 2014 at 12:31 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          I believe it can be shown in some instances, such as Noah's Flood that the act is morally good (and can only be morally good) when you look at the event in the proper context (i.e. God judging the guilty). This is a far different cry than that of Hitler murdering millions of Jewish people. Obviously on atheism, there is no real moral difference between either act and neither are wrong.

          March 15, 2014 at 8:29 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "I believe it can be shown in some instances, such as Noah's Flood that the act is morally good (and can only be morally good) when you look at the event in the proper context (i.e. God judging the guilty). This is a far different cry than that of Hitler murdering millions of Jewish people. Obviously on atheism, there is no real moral difference between either act and neither are wrong."

          Again, please specify where necessary to conform to your belief: "Obviously on atheism, there is no real objective (DIVINE) moral difference between either act and neither are seen as objectively (DIVINELY) wrong."
          I contend that all humans, including atheists have evolved to be social in nature to the degree to know subjectively that neither genocide nor Hitler's actions are not in anyone's best interests (not that humans, for various reasons, will consistently fall into such a general nature).

          I find the theist claim to excuse their God for being a contradiction to their own tenets – an exception as you have pointed out, disturbing. It's yet another reason I am thankful that in the U.S., separation of church and state is strong.

          March 15, 2014 at 9:07 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          "I find the theist claim to excuse their God for being a contradiction to their own tenets – an exception as you have pointed out, disturbing. It’s yet another reason I am thankful that in the U.S., separation of church and state is strong."

          I'm not excusing God. The act is morally good! I don't see the judgement of the guilty as morally wrong. Is the Judge acting immorally if he carries out punishment on the guilty? The problem may be that you don't see yourself how a holy God sees you.

          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.

          I'll tell you what is disturbing. It's that on atheism, there is no real moral difference between the actions of Mother Theresa and Hitler. That is disturbing indeed!

          March 15, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "I'm not excusing God. The act is morally good! "

          Well that's your belief. I contend that even if the Abrahamic God exists as something that did make its presence known to characters portrayed in the Bible, theists may not presently have the whole story about such a gpd, that he might not be alone, that he might be answerable to something else. Which is why I sometimes ask who this God's ethical adviser is. Theists have not provided a good demonstration to me yet why I should believe their God has the characteristics they have used thus far to describe it. Therefore, not only do I not believe such a God exists, but if it did exist, there would still be much more to prove to me before I could agree that such a God is universally just in its actions.

          Secondly I've seen you play that silly game with the questions. Save that for your own kind – I know you do love to bask in talking about your "sins".

          And again to correct your ending (pertinent to this discussion):

          "I'll tell you what is disturbing. It's that on atheism, there is no real objective (DIVINE) moral difference (something existing on its own between the actions of Mother Theresa and Hitler. That is disturbing indeed!"

          Now that we look at it the way you mean it without attempts to blur "good" and "bad" back into something universal, there should be no surprise why atheists don't hold such a difference. Because they don't subscribe the those DIVINE notions.
          Until someone can prove the existence of the Abrahamic God, I contend atheists do use moral judgment in the same way as the rest of human beings do -subjectively from their human nature, individually and in various groupings related to their history and human experience.

          March 15, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • Doris

          Also, tf, before you go asking any more questions of others, I serious suggest you start answering those others have posed to you above before restarting your argument over at the top as if you were spinning in some play wheel. For instance, you ran off before answering this the other night:

          tf: "though you haven't shown why they're morally evil other than to appeal to your intelligence and observation(I.e. Your own personal opinion which, on atheism, carries equal authority as the opinions of Hitler or anyone else in the world). Please provide Bible references so context can be examined."

          [Doris]: I won't speak for observer, but I just answered that for you (as to why and source of opinion). Based on my answer I would contend that yours is an opinion claimed, but not proven to be something other than an opinion and that it too carries equal authority as the opinions of Hitler or anyone else in the world. After all, it's much a matter of interpretation, right? That some Christians still sacrifice people to this day in parts of the world is a matter of interpretation of their God's moral imperatives, right?

          (And of course I can add to that with many contradictions in theistic belief of the Abrahamic God that result in serious moral consequences such as letting one's kids die because the belief is to avoid medical care.)

          March 15, 2014 at 11:07 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          1. God doesn't have an ethical advisor. I believe that morality flows from God and is a reflection of His nature. God's nature is unchanging as indicated in the Bible. We certainly have good grounds for objective morality in this manner. Objective morality doesn't change because it is grounded in the unchanging nature of God. So I can never say that the Holocaust is anything other than morally wrong.

          2. "Secondly I’ve seen you play that silly game with the questions. Save that for your own kind – I know you do love to bask in talking about your “sins”."

          Those questions show our need for a Savior. They show that all are guilty before the holy and perfect judge of the universe.

          3. On atheism, I don't see any grounds for objective morality other than personal opinion. It becomes a game of "Says who?" I mean that on atheism, there is no real moral difference between the actions of Mother Theresa and Hitler. Good or evil is just a matter of who you ask.

          4. "I contend atheists do use moral judgment in the same way as the rest of human beings do -subjectively from their human nature, individually and in various groupings related to their history and human experience."

          So according to this you would agree that what Hitler did was morally good if he thought it to be?

          March 15, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          "Based on my answer I would contend that yours is an opinion claimed, but not proven to be something other than an opinion and that it too carries equal authority as the opinions of Hitler or anyone else in the world. After all, it’s much a matter of interpretation, right? "

          It's not my opinion. If it were, it would carry as much authority as yours or Hitlers. What I am suggesting is that morality is grounded in the unchanging nature of God. In this sense, I can say that morality is objective, independent of personal opinion.

          "That some Christians still sacrifice people to this day in parts of the world is a matter of interpretation of their God’s moral imperatives, right?"

          The people who do this heinous act do it contradictory to Scripture and contradictory to the teaching of God in the Bible. See Deuteronomy 18:10-12. Please keep in mind that everything that is claimed to be done in God's name isn't. This sounds satanic to me.

          March 16, 2014 at 12:20 am |
        • Doris

          tf: "God's nature is unchanging as indicated in the Bible. We certainly have good grounds for objective morality in this manner. Objective morality doesn't change because it is grounded in the unchanging nature of God."

          Well now you're talking in circles a bit. But more importantly, what should be obvious to you, is that with all the variations within the Abrahamic faiths, or even just within Christianity – sometimes conflicting variations of moral code, no unchanging objective morality has been demonstrated to exist. Your opinion of alleged moral code is often different than the next Christian or the next sect. What would resolve that is if you could prove to not only me, but the next person within your faith that your interpretation is correct; that all others are wrong. Of course you need to demonstrate the existence of your God first objectively. I don't believe you can accomplish either one of those goals.

          tf: "Those questions show our need for a Savior. They show that all are guilty before the holy and perfect judge of the universe."

          LOL – please, save that for someone on your street corner...

          tf: "On atheism, I don't see any grounds for objective morality other than personal opinion. It becomes a game of "Says who?" I mean that on atheism, there is no real moral difference between the actions of Mother Theresa and Hitler. "

          Of course there is a difference, but it is subjective and involves the society that you and I are both a part of. You believe you are following something that exists on its own, but I contend, that you are fooling yourself; that you are simply subjectively follow a different societal grouping of opinion that I follow (although for many things, our opinions may be the same, and sometimes not). Again, if you can objectively prove your God, then that's a start. If you can get that far then we can discuss how you have determined that your version of the moral "truths" that you attribute to him make sense above what other believers maintain. Get that first step done to demonstrate you have the direct connection – I don't think you can.

          So, by what measure do you determine something to be moral? And how did you come by knowing such a measure?

          March 16, 2014 at 1:46 am |
        • Doris

          typo correction – middle of next-to-last paragraph: "subjectively following a different societal grouping"

          March 16, 2014 at 1:48 am |
      • redzoa

        @TF – Hi again. Apologies if you did go back and address these same points, but I must have failed to see them. You wrote: "It's just a difference of opinions. Do you not see a problem with this?"

        When push comes to shove, isn't it just your "opinion" when you claim "god is unchanging" and "god is invariably good?" Clearly, there is no objective means by which mortals might ascertain the veracity of these claims. After all, if these were more than opinions, we'd likely not see the incredible divergence between and within various faiths regarding the character of their equally various deities. You can allege characteristics for your preferred deity all day long, but this does not make them true. Particularly so when your "unchanging good nature" of god requires that god cannot actually choose to behave anyway except in compliance with his foregone "nature," thereby imposing a constraint upon his alleged omnipotence (i.e. a source of "good" beyond the control of god and one with which it must comply).

        Regarding why someone can point to the Holocaust or the biblical deity's condoning the owning of another human being as chattel (Lev 25:44-46) as immoral, they can invoke the golden rule to explain that as they would not want to be exterminated or subjected to chattel slavery, they would find the practice by their own hand or the hands of anyone else to be immoral, or plainly stated, it would be hypocritical and unfair. Yes, this is "just an opinion" and it is a relative/subjective position. But then, so is yours when you imbue your preferred deity with whatever traits you deem necessary to sustain your position.

        Again, perhaps you did address these questions, but your need to declare a purely objective/absolute morality suggests you would also find it necessary to declare an objectively absolute standard for what is "real love" or what is "real beauty." If, as I suspect you are willing to concede, there is no requirement for an objective/absolute standard for what is "real love" or "real beauty," then why do you believe morality must escape these "eye of the beholder" analyses? That is, if "real love" and "real beauty" can exist in the absence of an objective absolute standard, why can morality not? If your answer requires invoking some doctrinal interpretation of your preferred holy book, then isn't this too, just more opinion?

        Regarding

        March 14, 2014 at 1:16 am |
        • redzoa

          Oops. Scratch that last "regarding" . . . (single malt = poor editing)

          March 14, 2014 at 1:17 am |
        • joey3467

          I never understand this whole god is unchanging think. Does that mean I can still stone people to death for adultery? If god is unchanging then he certainly couldn't get made at me since in the past he ordered others to do it, or did god in fact change?

          March 14, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      He may be your lord but he's not mine. See, some of us gave up our imaginary friends and now live in reality land.

      March 13, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
  17. doobzz

    Eight days, three pope articles, two of which are just rehashing old stuff. Looks like it's business as usual at the CNN Belief Blog.

    March 13, 2014 at 11:53 am |
    • Doris

      Exactly. But based on the front page, I would say it looks like all of CNN is on vacation. The same stuff as yesterday. Where is a story about the Methodist minister who performed his son's gay marriage where the UMC has now backed off a trial against him? Why isn't that in the BB?

      March 13, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
      • doobzz

        Perhaps they have given up writing new/relevant/interesting articles for Lent?

        March 13, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • Akira

          *Snerk*

          March 13, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
  18. ausphor

    new-man
    The code most Christians go by the ten commandments, and the jesus admonition to love everyone. I used the word
    "probably" look it up and the reason I used it is because you refer to yourself to be Born Again, if you weren't a sc.um bag in the first instance, why would you need to be Born Again?

    March 13, 2014 at 11:48 am |
    • ausphor

      I hate when I miss the reply button, meant for the bottom of the page. Without the – newman would be Jerry's nemesis.

      March 13, 2014 at 11:53 am |
    • new-man

      It's Father's good pleasure to give us the kingdom. We get born-again so that we can enter the kingdom (why- because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; and yes, the kingdom is our inheritance).

      March 13, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • ausphor

        new-man
        I will take a pass on that, thanks anyway, Valhalla for me. But seriously what have you to say about the present topic/article?

        March 13, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • new-man

          you have correctly pointed out that I mostly do not comment on the articles... in case it needs spelling out, that's a conscious decision on my part.
          I did not watch the video, I do not intend to watch the video, I have no interest in watching the video.

          With regards to Mr. Frances, I like that he is adhering to the banner of Christ – LOVE.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          In the top right hand corner of the page you will find "About This Blog". If all you are going to do is preach your dogma expect to be criticised by the likes of me. If you do not want to relate to the topic, read the articles and/or watch the videos what do you have to contribute but your tired old dogma, over and over again, think for yourself for Vishnu's sake.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • new-man

          ausphor,
          you have spent the better part of the day telling me what I should do – isn't that interesting.

          since you are clearly interested in the articles and videos and have a wealth of knowledge to share, you should go ahead and do that and have others comment on your posts.

          you are also here preaching your tired old dogma – obviously I don't care enough about it to comment.

          I post my beliefs on CNN's Belief Blog – in the words of Robert Nestor Marley "throw mi corn, I didn't call any fowl".

          as I've said before, you're very bothered and bothersome; troubled and troublesome.
          I could suggest a solution, but that might be just a tad arrogant of me.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          Don't go all sensitive on me.
          I just find your preaching here as intrusive as a zealot trying to shove a pamphlet in my hand on the subway or street corner or worse knocking on my front door and asking me if I have heard the good news. If I offend you because I find your addiction to be for the weak and weary, good that is the intention.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • ausphor

          new-man, second or third try
          Don't go all sensitive on me.
          I just find your preaching here as intrusive as a zealot trying to shove a pamphlet in my hand on the subway or street corner or worse knocking on my front door and asking me if I have heard the good news. If I offend you because I find your addiction to be for the weak and weary, good that is the intention.

          March 13, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Ausphor,

      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 13, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
      • hawaiiguest

        Are you Ray Comfort?

        March 13, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          No, why?

          March 13, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          Because that's the same bullshit he uses which is merely an attempt to scare people into believing what you believe. It's a pathetic little argument that holds no weight for those who don't start off already agreeing with you.

          March 13, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          It's a biblical approach to witnesses and showing people their true standing before God. It strips away the human exaltation and reveals how a holy God sees us. How do you answer?

          March 13, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          I answer that it doesn't matter. Doing something does not sum up the entirety of a person.
          Demonstrate your god exists, then we can talk about whether I would even accept his morality, then you'd be able to bring up this idiocy in any valid manner.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
        • hawaiiguest

          Are you done already? The answer isn't in your script?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
  19. Doris

    I guess this pope shows a lot more compassion for the common man than many have ever known – you know, for someone who takes seriously Gullible's Travels, OT and Gullible's Travels, NT.

    March 13, 2014 at 11:02 am |
  20. new-man

    You Have It, So Say It!

    Matthew 25:29‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.

    Have you come across people who have little, yet even that little is taken away from them? On the other hand, there are those who already have much, yet they receive even more.

    Jesus said, “To everyone who has, more will be given. From him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.” Notice that Jesus doesn’t go on to say what it is we have. He simply says, “But to everyone who has.”

    Jesus is talking about a firm belief in God’s Word that gives one the courage to say, “I have it!” If you say that you have it, you have it, and more will be given to you. But if you say that you don’t have it, when you actually do because God has freely given us all things (Romans 8:32), then even what you have will be taken away — not by God but by the devil! The devil does not want you to walk in God’s blessings. So when you say that you don’t have it, he can rob you of your blessings because he has your agreement!

    When you need something, God says that you are to ask of Him. And when you ask, believe that you receive it. (Mark 11:24) Say you already have it even if you don’t see it in the physical realm yet, and one day, you will see it!

    God is not saying, “Oh come on, pretend that you see it. And if you pretend long enough, you will have it.” This is not a game! God is telling us to call forth those things which don’t exist as though they do. (Romans 4:17)

    Today, we are talking about the haves and have-nots in the church. If you believe that it is yours, you will have it. You will see yourself possessing it and enjoying it, and more will be given to you. But if you say, “Well, I don’t feel it and I’m not sure if it will come,” in essence, you are saying that you don’t have it when you actually do. Then, even what you have will be taken away. So say you have it today!

    JPM – daily grace inspirations

    March 13, 2014 at 10:25 am |
    • igaftr

      Does this have anything to do with the subject?
      You offer a lot of opinion , based on a book that has little credibility, and appears to have NOTHING to do with this subject.

      March 13, 2014 at 10:31 am |
      • new-man

        igaftr:
        good morning, what are you thankful for today?

        Have a Blessed day.

        March 13, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          I take it from your handle that you are convinced you are born again, right?

          March 13, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • new-man

          Cpt.Obv:
          I believe you've answered your own question...
          good morning... and have you learnt to love or are you learning to love all persons.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:49 am |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          Born Agains are the most dogmatic of all, because it is the dogma itself that forms their belief system. The Born Again believes that everyone needs to be told what to do–and realistically, that's the only thing keeping them out of jail. This group has a powerful systems of beliefs, and they will tell you about it whenever they get the chance.
          p. 100 The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
          You certainly fit the profile new-man, and you tell everyone whenever you get the chance, comedy gold.

          March 13, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        • new-man

          Cpt.
          forgive me for not applauding you for picking out some atheistic diatribe to mold me into.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:04 am |
        • igaftr

          What does THAT have to do with the subject?

          And don't practice your witchcraft on me.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          the truth about you is plainly obvious, you are so addicted to your beliefs you have to tell everyone else how they should live. No molding necessary. Never made Cpt., just a humble Cpl.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:14 am |
    • Bob

      Here are some more "inspiring" quotes from new-man's Christian book of nasty AKA the bible. One hopes that he isn't inspired to follow some of these demands placed on him by that horrid book, purportedly by his vicious and murderously vengeful sky fairy:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Leviticus 25
      44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
      45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
      46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

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

      March 13, 2014 at 10:40 am |
    • myweightinwords

      I take it you believe in the prosperity gospel then?

      There is certainly an element of prosperity that comes from positivity, but positivity is never enough. You can not merely "claim" your way into "having".

      Just as a Pagan who does spellwork or a Buddhist who chants/meditates, if all you do is pray, claim, chant, spell....nothing much is going to happen. Sure, use your faith to bolster your resolve, but you still have to get up off your butt and go do the actual work.

      March 13, 2014 at 10:46 am |
      • new-man

        myweightinwords,

        I'm actually in agreement with most of what you've written, especially the last paragraph.

        What I believe is that Jesus came that we may have life, and have it more abundantly. God is a God of abundance, as I like to say, over-abundance... and this is not limited to finances. Matter of fact we're told not to store up treasures here on earth... A person who has over-abundance in health is far wealthier than a person who has tons of money and no health.

        March 13, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • myweightinwords

          And yet your "inspirational" post says nothing about work. It says "claim it and it's yours"....it's a feel-good, pump-you-up, keep the sheep believing pep talk that is in no way beneficial to actually accomplishing anything.

          This is one of the big problems with churches and certain brands of Christianity. It acts kind of like a drug. You get your fix on Sunday morning, you get high on all the "good" stuff, on the music, on the praying and being told how special you are in god's special club...but you're given no tools to actually live your life with. And you're sent out into the world.

          The buzz wears off and you turn to prayer on your own and bible reading on your own trying to get it back, but since it comes from the combined energy of the pack, you can only partially get there....so you attend bible studies and Wednesday services just to keep the high going and you forget about living all together. You're a junkie in search of the next high with no skills for bettering your life, no plan to live.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • new-man

          myweight,
          the inspirational post was deliberately not specific about whatever it is... because not everything you "work/toil/labor" for.

          While I said I agreed with what you wrote, it was in the context of what you wrote... however the post was more broad-based than what you're confining it to.

          I can only imagine the person you're describing is perhaps you or others you know, as I can emphatically say none of that bears nothing similar to my life.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • Vic

          Psalm 128:2

          New American Standard Bible (NASB)

          "2 When you shall eat of the fruit of your hands,
          You will be happy and it will be well with you."

          March 13, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          You can't see that in your life, please, you get a high by coming on this blog posting your drivel and feeling oh so good by spreading the word of the Lord. You sanctimonious twit.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • new-man

          ausphor,
          I see that the irony of your very own words have eluded you.

          This is a belief blog as I recall- hence I post my beliefs.
          You have posted yours.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • myweightinwords

          new-man,

          This was my experience before I left Christianity. It has been my observation of others since then. Notice, I did not say all brands of Christianity are like this. Your post reminded me of those particular types of Christians. It's all hype and feel-good...but there isn't any meat on them bones.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          You come on here to post your drivel that most often has absolutely nothing to do with the article, you jump up on your soap box and preach. When some one calls you on it you continue to preach, you don't even have an opinion of your own just retreaded dogma.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • new-man

          myweightinwords, (This posted at the bottom instead of here... edited at the end)

          I do understand your point and could even relate. Now, I know more, I understand more, I experience more, so I know better.
          There is much more I could say here, however experience has taught me that what's not understood is deemed arrogance on my part.
          I have no fear of being called arrogant, I just don't have the time right now to get into a deeper conversation, and it's probably not what you're looking forward to either.

          edited:
          I just want to state that not 100% of the things I pray for; proclaim have manifested. However, I do not allow my experience to over-ride the word of God. This is a journey, one that leads us to enter into that realm of friendship with God (when you're friends you can have a conversation with God like Abraham to the point of negotiating with God - that's what I aim for. This is where we actually come into our inheritance with Father.
          Obviously the how to and the whys are not explored here – for time sake... but that's what the body of Christ needs.

          nice talking to you and a good day to you.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          If you pray for Gods will to be done, was there a chance that it wouldn't? If you pray for your will to be done, is there any chance God would change his plan to accomodate your prayer? If the answer to both of these questions is "No" then why do you do it even if you truly believe in an invisible deity that can hear your thoughts?

          March 13, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • myweightinwords

          For what it's worth, new-man, I am always interested in civil discourse on a wide range of topics, and in understanding others and their journey, their struggles...I am a student of humanity, and invite deep conversation and exploration of ideas that often make others uncomfortable.

          That said, however, I'm interest in conversation, not regurgitation of scripture or quotes from various and sundry Leaders/preachers/saints/historians, etc. i like to dig into the how and the why you believe or I believe. I like to examine things closely and falling back to "I believe because the bible says X" is seldom going to get a pass from me.

          What you believe is no where near as interesting to me as why and how.

          I should probably also warn that I will argue a position I don't actually hold from time to time, just to chase out the how and why and see the possible conclusions that come from it. And I don't like to jump. I like to follow an idea slowly, figure out how it leads to the next idea...and the next....how we get from point A to point M without the teleporter.

          March 13, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
      • new-man

        myweightinwords,

        Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom of God. That's the gospel I believe in.

        March 13, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          Do you think jesus can still walk on water, we need a good lifeguard at the public pool?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:03 am |
        • new-man

          Cpt. Obvs.,
          why are you so troubled and troublesome... or is it bothered and bothersome?.... seriously, something for you to think about... meditate even...

          March 13, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • ausphor

          new-man
          Not troubled at all but an bothered by phonies like you that has probably never lived up to the code you preach, something for you to think on. You have fallen for belief in one of the many man made gods and one of the most ridiculous, really, may Zeus strike me dead.

          March 13, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • new-man

          and just what exactly do you deem the code I preach, and how do you ascertain whether or not I am living up to said code?

          March 13, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • new-man

          myweightinwords,

          I do understand your point and could even relate. Now, I know more, I understand more, I experience more, so I know better.
          There is much more I could say here, however experience has taught me that what's not understood is deemed arrogance on my part.
          I have no fear of being called arrogant, I just don't have the time right now to get into a deeper conversation, and it's probably not what you're looking forward to either.

          so nice talking to you and a good day to you.

          March 13, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
1 2
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.