 |
|
|
|
 The $2.2 million mansion where Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory resides -- for now.
April 2nd, 2014
11:17 AM ET
Archbishop's $2 million mansion gone with the wind?By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Facing sharp criticism for falling out of step with Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Atlanta has apologized for building a $2.2 million mansion on land bequeathed by the family of a famed Southern writer. Atlanta's Archbishop Wilton Gregory said he approved construction of the 6,000-square-foot home after agreeing to leave the traditional archbishop's residence to make way for priests who serve the cathedral next door. Gregory moved into the mansion in January. "What we didn’t stop to consider, and that oversight rests with me and me alone, was that the world and the Church have changed," Gregory wrote Monday in the archdiocesan newspaper. The archbishop's apology began by citing an e-mail from a Catholic woman who chided Gregory for failing to follow "the example of a simple life as Pope Francis calls for." Gregory said he agrees and will consult church leaders about selling the mansion, which sits in Atlanta's upscale Buckhead neighborhood. “The example of the Holy Father, and the way people of every sector of our society have responded to his message of gentle joy and compassion without pretense has set the bar for every Catholic and even for many who don’t share our communion.” The archbishop's apology comes just days after the Pope accepted the resignation of Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst, also known as the "Bling Bishop," who spent $42 million renovating his residence in Limburg, Germany. Since his election last year, Francis has repeatedly urged Catholics to focus on income inequality and the suffering of society's marginalized. "Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor," he has said. The Pope himself has eschewed many of the trappings of papal life, living in a small apartment in the Vatican guesthouse instead of the sumptuous apartment in the Apostolic Palace and driving a small car instead of a limousine. Francis' example has put pressure on American bishops to adopt similarly austere lifestyles and emboldened rank-and-file Catholics to call them out if they fall short. In the past year, Archbishop Jon Myers of Newark, New Jersey, has been criticized for planning $500,000 to outfit his retirement home with a elevator, exercise pool, hot tub and library. Bishop Dennis Sullivan of Camden, New Jersey was slammed for spending the same amount on a mansion in Woodbury, while presiding over one of the state's poorest cities. Catholics in Charleston, West Virginia, have written to the Pope's ambassador, asking him to probe construction costs, including $7.5 million spent on the chancery, the diocese's central offices, according to the Charleston Gazette. In Atlanta, Gregory said he had received "many ... heartfelt, genuine and candidly rebuking" e-mails, phone calls and letters during the past week. "I failed to consider the impact on the families throughout the Archdiocese who, though struggling to pay their mortgages, utilities, tuition and other bills, faithfully respond year after year to my pleas to assist with funding our ministries and services," the archbishop said. Gregory said he will meet later this month with church councils to ask for "candid guidance" on whether to sell the abode, which was built on land donated by Joseph Mitchell, the nephew of "Gone With the Wind Novelist" Margaret Mitchell.
Next entry »Millennials and the false 'gospel of nice'
« Previous entryHow evangelicals won a war and lost a generation
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
As we speak, there is one POE and one troll on this blog. (close enough at least) The proper protocol is to call "Poe's Law" when you detect the deceiver and then the POE must confess.
The troll is obviously "thefinisher1"
You are the true definition of a troll, kiddo.
I tried to explain but no luck.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIFVdy6vzC4&w=640&h=360]
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.
This is very different from a POE. Poe's law states that without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing. Done correctly, it can be very amusing in my opinion.
"thefinisher1" is a standard issue troll. kiddo.
Lol, so are you CS.
Not me kiddo, sorry.
Using the word "kiddo" means you are a troll. Stop trolling. Your doing damage to your atheism!
What is a "troll."? I hear people called it all the time. From what I can tell it means "somebody with whom I strongly disagree."
Atheists typically throw the word "troll" or "Poe troll" around when they don't like what someone said. They act like they own the words and can use them whenever they see fit, but they never apply the words to themselves or other atheists.
Troll to me is someone who appears to just be trying to belittle and/or antagonize without even presenting much of a counter-argument. "thefinisher1", "Salero21", "His Panic" all fit that category to me.
That fits you atheists here perfectly!!! Heheheh
Poe troll to me is the same as I described for troll, but where the poster is intentionally misrepresenting their true intention or identi-ty and doing it well enough to fool people.
(or seem to fool at least some)
That's most atheists here do! Atheists are Poe trolls!
Actually, "HisPanic" is pretty clearly very, very disturbed.
Don't forget ya'll. According to "lettinggodinspire" it is tiring and useless to discuss facts and truth.
based on the word of the bible, how do you christians explain dinosaurs?
There's that time thing, again. Look, God lives by a much different clock than we do. We feel the need to put timeframes and names on everything or it isn't real. The Bible CAN'T list every animal that ever was, is now, or ever will be. God got the chain started by creating the creatures–in 'days' that we cannot even fathom, worded that way because we CANNOT understand it at this time so why blow us away in the frst Book of the Bible... that wasn't the point. It is just pointed out that God made every creature. Who are we to all say that some type of evolutionary changes haven't occurred when He was making it all?? Why couldn't He have done it that way??? He created all of nature, so who are we to decide HOW He did it and how long it 'actually' took to do it?? The 6-day timeframe is just a way to not have to spend EONS trying to explain something to the pitiful human brain that would be a useless waste of time and effort. He created all creatures, in His way, in His time. We always try to put Him in our 24 hour perspective. He doesn't work that way. He does what He does and we are unable to understand it, now. Explanations come later, and personally I cannot WAIT to find out those 'mysteries' that will be explained!!!
If you know how god works, why aren't you the messiah?
I am not going to fall into a tiring and useless diatribe with you, my dear. You asked a question and I answered it based on what I read and believe and in which I have faith. If you have actually read the Bible you mock, then you could have figured that one out by yourself. However, God still loves you and so do I. Take care and God Bless you and yours. Just be kind to those around you and the Earth. Even an atheist should be a good caretaker, since you live here as well!
So your reply to me is, "I believe it so it is true." Makes sense to me.
I read your post twice. Not only are there ZERO facts, proof or evidence to support ANYTHING you said, it doesn't even agree with the bible. Did you just make all of this up? Did your preacher fill your head with this?
@letting doG inspire
your god created time though didn't he? Wouldn't you think he'd be consistent?
No, mankind labeled 'time' as we know it, time zones, international dateline, hours, minutes, et al. Those are manmade, not from God. He just gave us the mental capability to think and reason, above other animals (although we don't usually ACT smarter than the others...), and we ran with it.
lettinggodinspire
Since it is impossible for you to know any of the this, you are a liar. Not very Christian.
@letting doG inspire
if the bible is the word of your god, then surely it is 100% accurate and describes everything just as god wanted us to know it. How can you then look at this part of the bible and so freely imagine and interpret and postulate about its meaning. Is your god not very precise? Is your god not a good writer? Did your god have trouble remembering how he had done it?
Ah, so you HAVEN'T read it. He is not the writer, just the One who inspired. Men physically wrote the words down.
So, he was an imperfect inspiration, then, wasn't he.
lettinggodinspire
Elementary school children these days can understand the concepts of evolution and a universe billions of years old. Are you saying that the smartest adults back then couldn't grasp this concept, especially if given hints in their holy book?
We've learned all we have in science basically in only a few hundred years without any hints in the Bible. In spite of what the Bible says, actually, because it's full of falsehoods. If the first books of the Bible really were written about 1000 BC, the Israelites could have been up to our speed way before the Greeks or Romans could have conquered them. They could have had the industrial revolution, the telescope, and developed advanced math back then. Think about the technological advantage the Israelites would have had if God have given them accurate information in the Bible. They would have conquered the other empires, discovered the Americas and have everything we have today, and more. Wouldn't that have been a more expected outcome from having the most powerful god of all on your side?
The word "dinosaur" wasn't invented yet, troll dog. They made no "word" to describe them. Just because the word "dinosaur" isn't mentioned it the bible, doesn't mean anything. Stop trolling you dumb dog.
not what I asked.
How do you explain the existence of dinosaurs given the way your book says the world was created?
How do you know what I believe? Wait, how do you know what I think? Dumb dog. Back to your cage!
dodge.
Since I haven't stated what I believe, I can't answer that question, dumb dog.
Nor were the words "bread" or "wine" but there were ancient Greek and Hebrew words for both. There are now over 700 known species of dinosaur. They ranged all over Europe and the Middle East, including what is now Israel. They ranged in size from small, chicken sized beasts to the Tyrannosaurus Rex . T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and would have terrified any humans. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long.
To think that they cohabited with humans all over the planet but were never drawn or otherwise mentioned in any literature ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD including in the Bible is, well, nothing short of delusional.
I think the answer is – the Bible isn't a history or science textbook. The Bible deals with the faith of a people. It chronicles their history, traditions and beliefs.
Dinosaurs are sadly irrelevant to Judaism and/or Christianity as a whole, so the Bible is mute on the subject.
We can postulate and speculate all day long, but when it comes down to it, we don't know.
If we are all born atheists, doesn't that make atheism the source of all the problems in this world? They were born atheist so why not blame your precious atheism as the sole source of all the evil and problems? Lol!! Atheists stupidity is growing at a fast rate in today's world and barely any of this "logic" or "reason" they boast so much about having!!
asinine
Wasn't an asinine comment, you dolt.
Not thinking that your original post is asinine is asinine.
We are all born atheist but then dumbazz parents insist on indoctrinating their children into religious cults 'cause that's what their dumbazz parents did to them, and voila, here we are.
So do atheist parents. Your point?
Teaching children to think for themselves and to not believe things for which there is no actual evidence is not indoctrination.
Ah, but your still forcing them to be atheist. They have no choice but to be atheist because you tell them to. You just made yourself look dumb, kiddo!
Wrong again. No forced attendance at any indoctrination sessions. No forced memorization of any atheist/anti-religion material.
Wrong again. You •raise• them atheist. Same thing. You're a hypocrite and a terrible liar.
Both sons are in their 20s. They've each attended cult ceremonies with their friends or dates. One is dating a mormon. They are free to believe whatever they like. No signs of mental illness yet. And I see you are a self-confessed troll. Have a nice day, azzhole.
And if they decide to leave the cult of atheism, what will you do? Call them names? Ha! This proves atheists are terrible terrible liars.
They already know what I think so nothing would need to be said. But I certainly would in no way support their delusions.
So atheism isn't much different from religion after all! Thanks for the proof, kiddo! Your showing the true colors of atheism! Your doing more damage than I ever could!
You are sick, obsessed. Seek help from a mental health professional. Stay away from guns, sharp objects and children.
thefinisher1
If babies are born atheist, and would remain atheist until they are taught to believe in a god who introduces various reasons to hate others, then your argument fails. Ultimately, religion is not the only thing that introduces reasons for hating people, but atheism, in itself, does not. So, you cannot blame violence on atheism, but at least some violence can be blamed on religion.
The world's problems have very little to do with religion or lack thereof. The world's problems stem from one source. People. And people will use any excuse or made up reason to do any number of things, because intrinsically, people are selfish. As we have seen in history, theocracies have been brutal as well as governments that espouse atheism. So obviously, religious beliefs are not the cause of these problems, merely the venue through which they were pursued.
There are dictatorships that are brutal, ad some of them are atheistic. There are also lots of governments that are far more secular than the USA, like Canada and Sweden, which appear to have even more freedom and security than the US has. Please try to keep in mind that the vast majority of atheists you're likely to come across believe in democracy, perhaps even more than conservative Christians who believe that simple majorities ought to dictate over minorities.
Bible Fan Fiction
This chapter: Judgment Day
The fires were as a giant ocean with demons fishing using long poles. Broken souls hung from hooks, dangling above the heat, toes just touching; blistering and blistering again. Satan’s flying minions picked the bones of those well-done and the enormous iron gates were shut tight by their own weight.
The bargaining table sat in the bow of a thickly made, plain wooden boat. The table was round with a green felt top. One by one the souls came seeking good fortune. Satan looked on as the dealer tabulated a naked man’s losses. All his chips in a pile, he begs for a chance.
The flaming pool of magma slurped in yet another pair of legs and feet as two pot-bellied men were hurled into the molten bath. Two creatures looked on; thrilled by the spectacle. One with drum and horn, face long and crude, his wooden shoes and silk robes out of place. The other walked on feet like a chicken and thought himself quite fancy with his hair of wool and blue undergarment.
Neither frog nor human he had two arms and two legs. His body was his face and his face was their torture chamber. Two brown eyes opposed each other as they kept watch over the slaughter. He grabbed the two sides of his large round mouth and stretched it wide to fit more filthy naked sinners.
One of the women was pregnant as they both stared down into the deep black waters they would drown in. Holding their arms behind their backs, a small man with a red-handled dagger the length of his arm and wearing a shimmering peacock feather as a coat forced them to join the other tormented souls swimming in the oil.
Sharpening the serrated edges of the jagged knife while sitting on its edge. A naked man, his scrotum ripped from his groin. Forever he will straddle the grotesque torture device while sickly wet brown frogs stand guard against his escape.
The thing is there were literally hundreds of "Books of Revelation" .. with all that apocalyptic stuff. They were a dime a dozen. Apocalypticism (which had arisen in Judaism rather late in its history) post Exile, was one of the major influences on the new (Christian) cult : None of them were really meant to be read literally. "Prophecy" was never intended to be "prediction of the future". In fact "omen reading" was an abomination and forbidden, (as stated in Leviticus). Most religionists have no clue about the literature and cultures of the ancient Near East.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWjtXasqPFM&w=640&h=360]
John was obviously tripping balls on LSD when he wrote this deranged fantasy
I don't think John wrote fan fiction but who knows.
Mushrooms. He had access to and there was widespread use of mushrooms as an hallucinogenic.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALCOqBSYLkg&w=640&h=360]
"What we didn’t stop to consider, and that oversight rests with me and me alone, was that the world and the Church have changed," Gregory wrote Monday in the archdiocesan newspaper.
Hasn't a simple life always been a virtue in the church? Funny, it is for the female members of the clergy. If it's good enough for the women, why do the men live in luxury? Hmm...
very simple answer....
according to the bible, women were made to serve men and are to be silent.
basically, women are property:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
see? women are about on the level with an ox or donkey or a lamp.
amen.
Did anybody read in the USA Today about South Carolina State Senator Kevin Bryant? Eight year-old Olivia McConnell wanted to make the mammoth the state fossil of South Carolina, as some mammoth remains had been found in the state. She had a bill introduced to the South Carolina State legislature to do so, but Bryant had an amendment added describing the mammoth "as created on the sixth day along with the beasts of the field." Another state senator, Mike Fair, had the bill temporarily killed. Fair does not want evolution taught as scientific fact in schools.
Anybody in South Carolina should be outraged and should tell these people that.
You should try living here!!! And people wonder why I am the way I am ...
Come on out to SoCal D-doG, we love mammoths out here man. We found the pygmy mammoths out on the Channel Islands a few years ago. It was a huge deal!
I lived in Huntington Beach last century. I miss it!
I'm in Georgia. Several years before I moved here, one of the metro Atlanta area school districts placed a sticker in biology textbooks proclaiming "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things." Now we have this archbishop's mansion. We're doing what we can to keep up with the South Carolinas and the Arizonas.
Can you imagine being a foreign-exchange student and seeing that? How embarrassing for the U.S.!!
I wonder if there was a wooly mammoth habitat on The Ark.
"Look daddy! I found a trilobite fossil!" says the 8 year old girl.
"What you've found there, my dear, is one of SATAN'S LIES! Cast it away for you will find nothing but damnation in those rocks!"
I might be in Morocco later this year. If so, I will be buying some of the best trilobites in the World. Road south of Marakesh, apaprently
You can get all the coprolites you want right here. Just walk into any church.
Colin,
generally speaking, macro evolution is a theory. Certainly not fact.
Oh utter garbage. Ever heard of dogs? they all evolved from the wolf. They are now as disparate as chihuahuas and great danes. If that is not macro evolution, what is?
Colin,
The domestic dog and wolf belong to the same "kind" (canines). What you have to show is a change in "kind". For example like a change from canine to feline. This would be macro evolution.
truthfollower01,
In Biblical times, there were no words for genus and species. They all must have been "kinds" logically.
What I'm saying is that to show macro evolution to be true, a demonstration of a change in kinds must be shown (for example: canine to feline). Colin was making a false assumption.
So you must personally witness something to believe it. Why do you believe some desert dweller called jesus is divine? You didn't actually witness any of his alleged miracles, did you?
truthfolower01 – for a wolf to evolve into a chihuahua and a great dane (and every breed in between) you must accept that the spinal chord can evolve from its original length to lengths from a few inches to a few feet, for fundamental organs like the heart, lungs and stomach to evolve into vastly different sizes, for limb length to evolve into greatly different sizes, for facial structure to evolve into shapes as different as the dachshund and the pug, for se.xual organs to evolve into very different sizes, for hair length, color and curliness to evolve, for sense organs like smell and bark to evolve.
So, what cannot evolve? What is it that distinguishes "micro-evolution" as you (but no biologist) calls it from macro evolution?
The fundies of atheism are losing and always will.
"The fundies of atheism..."
lol – where did you get that from – the discard pile at the Evangelical Fortune Cookie Company?
Fundies atheists exist. Proof can be found on most Internet forums like this one, silly!😀😃😜😃😉😃😜😃😜😃😜
@thefinisher1
You never answered my question yesterday. What is wrong with atheism?
It's false. Atheists want people to leave their religion behind and totally believe what they claim based on blind faith. That's what you atheists offer. You have no proof that will convince others they are wrong and you are but you get upset when nobody believes you like spoiled little brats. Expecting people to just stop believing because you say so is illogical and dumb. Why are atheists so angry? Because people realize the truth about atheism and what it basically stands for? Atheists spread their non-belief like everyone else. They fail to see how they are so much alike to the people they flame and attack.
But what is wrong with atheism? If atheists were not the horrible people you describe, then what would be wrong with believing in something false, as long as you aren't hurting anybody else?
Atheists expect people to drop what they are believing and become atheists with a snap of their fingers. You get mad when people don't believe you. You try and convince others they are wrong while never actually confirming you are right. See something similar here? Atheists claim to be superior, better than religious people, but they end up using the same tatics as religious people do(converting). So doesn't that drestroy the entire atheist thinking to pieces? You aren't better and act more like fundies do than you actually realize. Atheists have always been like the religious, always trying to convert people to join them. Atheists aren't going to admit they aren't better but the facts still remain true. If you want others to stop believing and turn to atheism because you say so, you just atheism into a religion that requires faith and has NO EVIDENCE. Got it?
Wrong as usual. We hope, 'cause praying sucks, that people will shed childhood myths for a moment and realize that they believe a load of crap for which there is no actual evidence. But I don't really care what delusional believers think and do as long as they confine their silliness to their homes and cult clubhouses, between consenting adults.
@thefinisher1
I am an atheist but I do not behave as you describe. The majority of my friends and family are religious. This has never presented any problems. So I ask you for the forth time: What is wrong with atheism?
*fourth
Let me ask you a question: have you seen Dyslexic dog's posts? Why don't you call him out for releasing so much hatred onto believers? Is it because atheists only point out the flaws of others not their system of beliefs and the people that believe as you do? He bashes Christians everyday. Atheists remain silent and typically cheer him on. Why? It's an act of trolling. Why not call him out for it? Huh? Internet atheists are biased that's why. Fundie atheists are becoming annoying. Highly annoying in fact. They are more annoying than Christian fundies are.
By the way, I don't believe what I believe because I've been trained my entire life to. Nope. Not even close. Atheists typically think most people have lived the life they lived before they left whatever faith they grew up in. Stop thinking that. It's a flawed baseless assumption.
@thefinisher1
Why are you concerned about D-doG? Are you unable to turn the other cheek? Have you no sense of humor? You take all of this much to seriously. But still my concern here is WHY do you lump me in with the atheists you troll and belittle?
"Atheists expect people to drop what they are believing and become atheists with a snap of their fingers. You get mad when people don't believe you."
-- post the poll of all the atheists. You DO have some data to back up that drivel, I presume ?
Oh wait you don't actually KNOW even one atheist. You just made it up.
Never mind.
Atheists call believers troll but never call other atheists trolls. When an atheist trolls, other atheists praise them. Why? Why don't you call them out for it? Atheism is indeed a cult as atheists justify other atheists actions. How ironic!
there once was a finisher1
who raved about a god and his son
with his arguments blurred
and his logic absurd
verbal diarrhea from his chin it did run
He's never actually said anything about his beliefs; he just hates atheists and misrepresents them.
It's his little gimmick.
I hate nobody. You atheist fundies are annoying and need to be taught a lesson.
Judging from your posts the only lesson you have taught is that you are not very bright.
He also won't answer a simple question and he is rude. Unacceptable.
there once was a finisher1
who raves against atheist sc.um
with his arguments blurred
and his logic absurd
verbal diarrhea from his chin it did run
That's why the "nones" are growing and believers are dying out.
By all means, keep your head in the sand.
10,000 years from now, no one is going to even KNOW about the cults of ancient desert dwellers,
It's impossible for all humans to believe the same thing. Keep your head in the clouds, kiddo. Your dream is illogical.
Financial 'missteps' here, redlight district encounters there, and much worse.......decade after decade – across all denominations...
If your religious leaders can take their God seriously or fear their God in the case of the pedophiles – why should anyone else? At some stage 'fallen nature of man' should give way to "maybe Im being conned here".
should be: cant take take their god seriously.....
spoiled childs of previous Popes........next thing, Francis should hand over childmolesters to local authorities too!!
All you Christian nutters, suffering is all part of jesus/gods loving plan, how obtuse can you get.
religious leaders fleece followers out of their money and spend it on themselves...
same old con game.
religious organizations that make millions don't pay taxes and aren't audited.
the only way to shut them down is for people to stop going, stop giving these con-men their money.
you can say no one is forcing these people to give their money to the church,
but religious brainwashing is a very difficult thing to overcome,
as many atheists can attest to.
what is one to do but hope that religion fades away over time and is replaced by true charities.
Sharpening the serrated edges of the jagged knife while sitting on its edge. A naked man, his scrotum ripped from his groin. Forever he will straddle the grotesque torture device while sickly brown frogs stand guard against his escape.
""I failed to consider the impact on the families throughout the Archdiocese who, though struggling to pay their mortgages, utilities, tuition and other bills, faithfully respond year after year to my pleas to assist with funding our ministries and services," the archbishop said."
At least they admit the have no empathy for the folks from whom they take money.
""What we didn’t stop to consider, and that oversight rests with me and me alone, was that the world and the Church have changed," Gregory"
Hypocrisy of the highest order. In other words – well, we'd of gotten away with it if not for that meddling Pope.
Yet, I'm sure your flock cares not and continues to donate.
Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows them?
"Hypocrisy of the highest order. In other words – well, we’d of gotten away with it if not for that meddling Pope."
Kinda how I took it as well...as if all would have been fine if Benedict has remained Pope...I think this guy was miffed at being called out on it, not that he had some great epiphany about his actions.
Nice nod to SD, btw. Made me chuckle.
Nothing has "changed". 100 years ago this would have been just as scandalous. What an ignorant tool, attempting to excuse his short-sighted oblivious behavior on a "world that has changed", not on the fact the HE never possessed EVER a spirit of humility and charity and justice. Maybe some day Catholics will go back to the real "traditional" way of getting their bishops ... and ELECT them, like the early church did.
if I was powerful enough to create the universe, I wouldn't let thousands of children die in agony from malnutrition and sickness every day. I am glad to say that's the difference between me and your god.
So what would you do.
Not let it happen. That seemed plain.
and exactly how do you do that?
@new-man,
Presumably the same way the supposed God created the universe.
Tell me how your God did that and ill tell you how id not let kids die in such a manner.
@MidwestKen,
God created by speaking. He didn't speak what He saw, He spoke what He wanted to see/or what He wanted to come to pass.
The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's, but the earth hath he given to the children of me [that's us].
We [man] have the spoke word for a reason. The words we speak have the power in them to call into being/existence what we want, not what we see.
So, back to the point, it's not God who needs to do anything in the earth – he gave the earth to man. He even sent His Son to redeem us and restore power and dominion [ruler-ship over the earth] back to man.
So to see the end of starvation, poverty, sickness, death etc. all that you do not want, you speak into being what you do want. So you speak health, life, abundance etc. into being.
That's how it IS being done, that's how it WILL be done.
let me make clear, I did not mean we cannot speak what we see, because obviously that's what mankind has been doing all along. when you speak what you see, you will keep getting what you see. that's why you speak what you want and not what you're seeing [if what you're seeing is not what you want].
So, basically you would need to create an entire new creation. That new creation would require an intelligent design and a designer with your plan in mind
@new-man,
Do you just ask questions so you can preach about things that are not relevant to the discussion?
The point I was making was that if an alleged God can "speak" the universe into existence then He should "speak" children not dying in such manner into existence
@believerfred,
What? Why would you think that?
If an alleged God can "speak" things into existence, then wouldn't that power allow one to "speak" changes into existence?
seems silly to think a deity that supposedly created the universe, is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent can't think of a way to keep children from dying from malnutrition. there are many examples of magic in the bible. why can't god just magic up a new law - children can't starve to death? if he's all-powerful, he can surely do that. jesus supposedly made a paltry amount of bread and fish into enough to feed all, why can't god just give all children the power to say a magic word and a plate of food appears? seems simple enough for a god that created stars and planets....
@MidwestKen,
I ask questions to allow one to think instead of repeating atheist propaganda, or whatever cemented wrong ideas they keep posting without fail.
As Dr. Lance Wallnau would say, competence is going back to the disposition of a learner because there are paradigms you have that you expect things to fit into.
This, your reply to fred: "If an alleged God can "speak" things into existence, then wouldn't that power allow one to "speak" changes into existence?"
if you meant it the way you posted it and understood what you posted then you would have gotten what I said. That yes, you have the power – given to you by God to "speak" changes into existence.
you should do it... don't just try it... just do it.
MidwestKen
The assumption is that God can do whatever God pleases in whatever ways imaginable or unimaginable. God has done that. In this post it was suggested God could end hunger, sickness and suffering of children. God has not, things are as they are so it is a given this is all part of the plan.
This is why I said you need to come up with an entire new plan or purpose of creation because what we see has been the pattern since Genesis 3. Hunger, sickness and suffering of children happens to be one of the observed parts of our existence the Bible explains as part of the fallen world.
If you do not believe in God then this World is simply the product of accident and there is no purpose in suffering of children. Suffering of children has the same meaning and purpose as a frog thrashing about as the pond dries up. Children frolicking in the meadow have the same meaning as a butterfly dancing across the flower tops.
@new-man,
Unless you're talking about those psuedo-psychological gimmicks like the Secret, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that people can bypass the laws of physics by talking.
MidwestKen
The plan of creation is for a purpose onto God not man. The Bible has expressed that purpose as to present the Glory of God in and through a creation that is very good. Man was made in the image of God in order to join in that unity. All else will be outside of that unity. In short Gods purpose is to separate the light from the darkness (good and evil) and it is an eternal separation. This was the plan from the beginning as in the beginning God said let there be light and there was light. The light entered the world but the world knew it not.
Yes, suffering children are part of that plan even though we think we have a better plan. I have yet to hear any atheist or agnostic or non Christian put forth an alternate plan. An alternate plan that assumes God does not exist requires the undoing of natural laws in many respects (natural selection for one) if suffering in children was non existent. It would require a new intelligent design and a new purpose for creation from the designer. Please help me out and tell me how an atheist would intelligently design existence.
@believerfred,
"This is why I said you need to come up with an entire new plan or purpose of creation because what we see has been the pattern since Genesis 3."
Are you saying that your supposed God can't make changes? Even if, say, those changes are part of a larger plan, like flooding the entire planet? (I wonder, did God plan to kill everyone by water, then regret it and promise never to do it again. Odd plan that.)
"Suffering of children has the same meaning and purpose as a frog thrashing about as the pond dries up. Children frolicking in the meadow have the same meaning as a butterfly dancing across the flower tops."
We give things meaning. Why do you need more reason than that?
@believerfred,
“The plan of creation is for a purpose onto God not man.”
So you claim, but I have seen no reason to believe such.
“I have yet to hear any atheist or agnostic or non Christian put forth an alternate plan. An alternate plan that assumes God does not exist requires the undoing of natural laws in many respects (natural selection for one) if suffering in children was non existent. It would require a new intelligent design and a new purpose for creation from the designer.”
You are 'begging the question', by assuming the current state is due to some deity’s plan. The current state of the universe sure seems consistent with no plan at all. Why would atheists need to provide an alternate “intelligent design” when they are almost by definition saying that it is unlikely that this one is “intelligently designed”.
MidwestKen
"Are you saying that your supposed God can't make changes?"
=>God can do anything imaginable or unimaginable. Gods time is not subject to our boundary of time based on our existence. The end and beginning have been explained in the Bible and as time progresses the suffering of children will increase until such a time as God closes the book of life. At that point all things will be made new and God will wipe away EVERY tear. Take note every tear. Further all things work to the good of those who believe. Yes, somehow within that promise of no more tears and every tear being wiped out of existence God has already provided for suffering children.
"I wonder, did God plan to kill everyone by water, then regret it and promise never to do it again. Odd plan that"
=>Yes, the plan is separation by light and Christ was that light and Christ was eternal as is the Father. On an eternal landscape the beginning and end fold into the present. The word "kill" does not fit with the issue of cleansing which is what happened with the purifying waters sent by God. Good and evil were separated, Adam and Eve brought it into the world and the process of cleansing by the purifying waters of God continues and is part of the process of unity with God.
"We give things meaning. Why do you need more reason than that?"
=>Meaning we give ourselves are simply meaningful to self. The main thread of God is purpose outside of self has eternal meaning. When you die or when mankind finally ends the meaning of man remains within self thus eventually becomes empty and without meaning. So long as you understand your self given meaning is self limiting. If you consider you cannot possible know all meaning yet limit meaning is not reasonable. Reason would dictate more meaning is better than less meaning otherwise a frog and man have the same meaning. That is unreasonable.
"Why would atheists need to provide an alternate “intelligent design”"
=>because they know suffering children is absolutely wrong yet deny absolute right and wrong. The notion of absolute requires knowledge outside of relative morality.
believerfred is absolutely wrong.
@believerfred,
“Yes, somehow within that promise of no more tears and every tear being wiped out of existence God has already provided for suffering children.”
This sounds like a rationalization of something that really doesn’t make sense, not the workings of a God that is supposedly perfect. What evidence is there that your thinking is correct?
“The word ‘kill’ does not fit with the issue of cleansing which is what happened with the purifying waters sent by God.”
I bet there are many serial killers who wished they could put it so well.
"because they know suffering children is absolutely wrong yet deny absolute right and wrong. The notion of absolute requires knowledge outside of relative morality."
The universe apparently does not care about the suffering of children, but we can.
@MidwestKen,
No, I am not speaking of "psuedo-psychological gimmicks like the Secret". And you are correct, one cannot bypass the laws of physics by talking.
In the same manner one cannot bypass or suspend spiritual laws.
For example- we all know what will happen if a person decides to jump from a building. No one asks for physical laws to be suspended so the person doesn't end up in a pile on the ground.
In the same manner, if a person decides to sow to the flesh – they do so by envy, strife, hatred, murder, idolatry, adultery etc. one cannot ask for spiritual laws to be suspended so the earth isn't thrown into chaos (sufferings such as was mentioned above.)
I posted this video yesterday, and if you choose to watch it, what I'm saying now will be better explained. Pt 2 is also available. This is not to convert you, just to support my position.
Blessings.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_DIWinaKhI&w=640&h=360]
@new-man,
“In the same manner one cannot bypass or suspend spiritual laws.”
What spiritual laws would those be exactly?
About the video… cute story, but what’s the point? A house built of clouds won’t survive the next breeze. Using one’s source for a position doesn’t support that position, it is the position.
“without the kingdom the earth will not survive”
there has always been … what… strife. What does that … come on… prove? This universe was not .. what… “created” for us. We just… come on.... live in it.
I don’t know anything about him, but Dr. Bill sounds like a fraud, especially there at the end.
new man,
What language did your deity "speak" ? Gobbedly go'ok ?
Speaking takes TIME. How did your god "act" (in time) if space-time hadn't been created yet ? Oops.
Such meaningless drivel you people come up with.
"Babylonian system" LOL. What the fool doesn't know is that he HAS a "Babylonian system" Yahweh was a Babylonian deity.
MidwestKen
“Yes, somehow within that promise of no more tears and every tear being wiped out of existence God has already provided for suffering children.”.....you said: What evidence is there that your thinking is correct?
=>Those "in Christ" that experience the loss and suffering of a loved one find renewal in hope of that promise alone. God has fulfilled all promises to date we have no reason to believe God will not fulfill promise made. If God ever failed to deliver we would have reason to doubt. This is in stark contrast to the atheist or skeptic who has removed all possibility of hope without any evidence whatsoever. This is in stark contrast to the atheist or skeptic who ignores all human patterns of hope in what cannot be seen in all recorded human history.......a hope that included the Neanderthal burying their dead children with artifacts of importance. Further, the atheist or skeptic reveals his or her fear of the reality of hopelessness through anthropomorphic beliefs in a cold harsh sociopathic universe. If all you have is the natural you have no hope outside of the natural. Amazing that with all the non natural places your mind has awareness to visit you continue to hang onto some unseen string of naturalism. Why hold onto that string if there is nothing there to fall into?
"The universe apparently does not care about the suffering of children, but we can."
=>Just curious, what hope does an atheist offer a terminal suffering child?
@believerfred,
Many ideas can provide hope, some likely better than your beliefs, but is false hope really hope?
Yup! It's like saying that, if you had the powers of Superman, would you just sit around and let people that you could save die? God, on the other hand, appears to only "save" people through interventions (miracles) as a sign of how great he is.
Imagine if Superman did that, showed up just every so often to rescue somebody and stuck around to be praised for doing it. Would people call him a hero for doing that, or just a jerk?
God could give everyone a miraculous save if helping them was what he actually wanted to do, but he doesn't. If real, his "miracles" are just the way he publicizes himself, right?
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?
Job 38:4-11
DD God is all powerful. But God says in Isaiah 55:8, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,"
You cannot expect God to behave in the ways you would expect in your limited mind (that is not an insult, we all have limited minds).
We know that God is using everything that happens on Earth for the Good of those who love Him: Romans 8:28 says,
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
We all need to love God and align ourselves with His purpose that we may enjoy the life He wants us to live.
No. Why would a god require such from us?
guidedans
You realize that Job is describing a flat earth here, correct? A spherical world in space wouldn't have a "cornerstone", "pillars" or "foundations", but they imagined a flat earth would.
If it gets this wrong, why should we believe that it doesn't get other things wrong as well.
<> God left humans in charge of the planet and taking care of all things on it, including themselves and others. If everyone followed the basic commandments of love God and love your neighbor, then there would never hav BEEN starving children. Sad that you all blame God for the starvation. He didn't do it, we did it to ourselves and now it is so out of hand, we cannot easily fix it. So you call upon God to 'work magic' and make it appear. It's called free agency, sad at times that we cannot handle it. Very simple, love others and love your God, and all else would have fallen into place. But humans cannot do it, we are greedy, cruel, imperfect, hate others, mistreat all including our planet and creatures, and then want God to 'fix' it. Why? So we can do it all again? No, this life is temporary and what we do here guides what will happen to each of us later. Just start truly loving one another, caring for others and the fragile life we all hold, and things could change. But we can't do it. So Christians like myself carry on with what we feel is correct, and await the end. In God's time, not ours.
lettinggodinspire, Well said .
Maybe the difference between religion and science is just confidence.
The big classic religions have supreme confidence. They are absolutely certain their ideas are divine Truth. But they conflict with each other in many ideas, so either 1 or none of them are right.
Science has low confidence in itself. Because of that, scientists have their ideas peer reviewed and validated by independent experimenters. The accretive knowledge that has come from the scientific method in the last 500 years is unparalleled in human history. Neither science nor scientists are flawless, but the vast majority of their findings has met the test of time and use.
It's funny that there is only one science while there have been thousands of religions. Paraphrasing Penn Jillette, If there was a global deluge next week with just a few survivors, many new religions would sprout up, while science would be re-discovered and be virtually identical to what we have (assuming the few survivors held on).
I am yet to hear an evolutionary biologist claim that they accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution because:
1. They had an experience one day and now feel "born again" after Charles came into their lives.
2. Evolution is written about in a 2,000 year old book of late Bronze Age and Greco-Roman Jewish mythology.
3. It makes them moral and good.
4. "Well, how else could it have happened."
I guess we rational people just hold ourselves to a higher standard than the sky-fairy believers.
– Colin
Humility, although preached as one of their highest values, is not generally practiced by those following those religions – especially by their leadership.
boston,
I agree with you that science should have extremely low confidence, but that is often not what we see. Many scientists are extremely confident in their findings until they are shown to be wrong, and even then, many still cling to outdated beliefs.
I think people in general want to be correct and so they invest heavily in their beliefs. Once you have paid for something (either monetarily or with your time and energy), you think that that thing is valuable. The same goes for thoughts. And I don't think it is different between those who believe in God or those who don't.
I have seen many an atheist say with certainty and confidence that God does not exist. That is a claim that could never be proven, but some people tend to treat it as fact.
I guess what I am trying to say is that, both sides are very invested in their beliefs and so you will find confidence on both sides of the debate.
"Many scientists are extremely confident in their findings until they are shown to be wrong, and even then, many still cling to outdated beliefs.
Cling to outdated beliefs like what? I don't see any ether apologists out there. Seems like everyone is OK with photons.
I have seen many an atheist say with certainty ... that God does not exist.
Certainly some will say this. It is my opinion that this represents a minority or atheists. I've never seen survey data that tests for the question of a categorical assertion of non-existence. Most will agree that you can't prove the non-existence of anything.
Note that I redacted the word "confidence" deliberately. It is possible to disbelieve with confidence and not claim certainty.
@guidedans
You said, "I have seen many an atheist say with certainty and confidence that God does not exist."
While the existence of creatures that resemble gods can't conclusively be ruled out, the absence of even the slightest bit of evidence for their existence should lead any reasonable person to not believe they exist. Even worse is believing in creatures that are said to have contradictory, and therefor mutually exclusive attributes. If you consider the attributes omnipotence and omniscience, commonly assigned to the christian god, you'll find that they are mutually exclusive. A god that allegedly has both is impossible to exist.
So while a nondescript god may not be ruled out completely, one that has specific traits may very well.
You said, "That is a claim that could never be proven, but some people tend to treat it as fact."
The implication is that unless it can be conclusively proven that something doesn't exist, it warrants believing it does. Is that really the standard by which you determine what you believe? If so, you have no reason not to believe the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny are real, or any of the thousands of gods ever worshiped.
Guidedans and I would probably agree that Ra (Egyptian sun/head god) doesn't exist
But when we are talking about jehova/ephriam/jesus/yaweh/God – well now that changes things...suddenly one cant know for certain.
both are man made fiction.....100% pure bronze age fantasy
Religion is certainly a confidence game. Emphasis on the "con" part.