home
RSS
April 14th, 2014
06:06 PM ET

The accused Kansas killer's neo-pagan religion

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

(CNN) - Frazier Glenn Cross is a white supremacist, an avowed anti-Semite and an accused killer. But he is not, as many think, a Christian.

Cross, who also goes by the name Glenn Miller, is accused of killing three people - all Christians - on Sunday at Jewish institutions in Overland Park, Kansas.

Authorities are weighing whether to file hate-crime charges against Cross, who is suspected of targeting Jews.

The 73-year-old has espoused anti-Semitism for decades. He also founded racist groups like a branch of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Patriot Party, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Both groups have deep ties to Christian white supremacists.

But according to Cross' 1999 biography, he is an adherent of Odinism, a neo-pagan religion that experts say has emerged as one the most vicious strains in the white supremacist movement.

"The faith’s obsession with genetic purity, racial supremacy and conquering supposedly lesser peoples is a recipe for violence," said Josh Glasstetter, campaign director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Cross writes in his autobiography, "A White Man Speaks Out":

I'd love to see North America's 100 million Aryan Christians convert to the religion invented by their own race and practiced for a thousand generations before the Jews thought up Christianity.

Odinism! This was the religion for a strong heroic people, the Germanic people, from whose loins we all descended, be we German, English, Scott, Irish, or Scandinavian, in whole or in part.

Odin! Odin! Odin! Was the battle cry of our ancestors; their light eyes ablaze with the glare of the predator, as they swept over and conquered the decadent multi-racial Roman Empire.

And Valhalla does not accept Negroes. There's a sign over the pearly gates there which reads, "Whites only."

Odin, often depicted with a white beard and long robe, is chief among the Norse gods, whose pantheon includes Thor, the god of thunder, and Loki, the mischief-maker

In 2010, a white nationalist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, boycotted the movie "Thor" because it cast a black actor, Idris Elba, as a Norse god.

Cross writes in his autobiography, which remains posted on his website, that he has prayed for Odin to spark a race war in the United States.

On Sunday, Cross "appears to have been acting out a violent fantasy, with himself cast as the brave Odinist warrior of his imagination,"  Glasstetter said.

What the killings at Kansas Jewish sites say about U.S. hate groups

Though Odinism has been appropriated by white racists, most adherents are peaceful, earth-loving pagans (some followers prefer the name "heathen"), said Jonathan White, an expert on religious extremists and a professor at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

An ancient Viking religion, Odinism resurfaced in northern Germany in the 19th century, where Nazis later appropriated its themes and gods.

Odinist mythology "was a bedrock belief for key Third Reich leaders, and it was an integral part of the initiation rites and cosmology of the elite Schutzstaffel (SS), which supervised Adolf Hitler's network of death camps," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Odinism also influenced the creation of the American Nazi Party, which was founded in 1959.

Odinism has lately gained in popularity among white supremacists who believe that Jesus is too peaceful and too Jewish to worship, White said.  "It's hard to get a violent god out of Jesus."

The Southern Poverty Law Center warns of a Odinist network run out of  a California prison, where Asatru, another neopagan religion with roots in Iceland, has also taken root.

"Racist versions of Odinism and its Icelandic version, Asatru, have become increasingly popular theologies among imprisoned racists and others on the radical right in recent years," said the Southern Poverty Law Center in a 2009 report. 

Peaceful neo-pagans, meanwhile, have strongly condemned white supremacists who appropriate their religion.

"I want to say that Frazier Glenn Cross is a monster, and it cannot be denied that he's not alone," said Josh Rood, an expert on Asatru at the University of Iceland. "The prison systems, and the white separatist movements have been bastardizing Asatru beliefs, symbols, and myths for a long time."

However, Rood said, white supremacists form a minority - albeit a loud and violent one - of a peaceful and proudly multicultural religion.

Several mainstream neo-pagan and self-described heathen groups have strongly denounced Sunday's killings and are raising money for the victims.

Cross' own public proclamations of faith seem to have taken several twists.

David Embree, a religious studies professor at Missouri State University, said Cross presented himself as a traditional monotheist when he ran for Congress in 2008.

But when he spoke at Embree's classroom in 2012, his views had apparently changed, the professor said.

"He essentially self-identified as an atheist," Embree said. "The more overtly Christian groups in Southern Missouri have pretty much shunned him."

Cross's second in command at the White Patriot Party, Stephen Miller, is a member of the Christian Identity movement, which claims that whites are the "true people of God."

"Though I shared that particular belief, I did not agree with others," Cross writes in his autobiography.

"Christianity is the second biggest trick the Jews ever played on us," he later writes. "The biggest was legalized abortion!"

White said he sometimes refers to the violent strain of Odinism as "Nordic Christianity" because many American adherents borrow from both in creating their racist ideology.

In his autobiography, Cross blends Christianity and Odinism in describing his ideal funeral.

He writes that he would like to be buried in his White Patriot Party uniform. The music would include "The Old Rugged Cross," the venerable Christian hymn, and "Ride of the Valkyries," an opera piece appropriated for Nazi propaganda.

This is how Cross closes the book: "Praise Odin, pass the ammunition, Sieg Heil, and Heil Hitler!"

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Crime • Discrimination • Neo-Nazi • Neopaganism • Prejudice • Religious violence • Violence

soundoff (1,048 Responses)
  1. onebadmamajama

    What a sick, twisted and deeply stupid human being. I hope he rots in jail.

    April 18, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
  2. Salero21

    So he hasn't been put to sleep yet huh?

    Well, that's because in a corrupt and perverted "Legal system", a murderer like him and others. Have almost more rights than their victims.

    On top of that, in such corrupt system the families, relatives, widows/widowers, orphans, friends, fellow workers/students, neighbors etc. of the victims. Have to spend the rest of their lives, paying taxes. So the murderer in jail, can have a place to sleep comfy, 3 meals a day, recreation, clothes, Dental & Medical care, all paid for by the aforementioned. While at the same time the widows, orphans of the victim may struggle to pay for or to have Dental & Medical.

    Also in such corrupt and perverted Legal system. Though there may be hundreds of witnesses, including the Police, photos and Videos of the Criminals committing the Crimes. They still have to take them through costly & lengthy trials, just to make sure that their "rights" are protected, that he or she is the one who did and to find out why they did it. And let's not forget the court appointed lawyers they sometimes get, courtesy of all of dear us taxpayers.

    Prov. 14:Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.

    April 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
    • Salero21

      Prov. 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.

      April 18, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
    • Doris

      Blablero: "Well, that's because in a corrupt and perverted "Legal system", a murderer like him and others. Have almost more rights than their victims. "

      Many have the common sense not to break up sentences, leaving non-sentences.

      Regardless, your point is idiotic. If you're that unhappy with our legal system, then you should move to a theocracy or somewhere where rights are not cherished and applied less equally.

      April 19, 2014 at 8:00 am |
      • Salero21

        Pro 14:1 The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands.

        April 19, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
  3. erinlale

    Pingback: http://www.bubblews.com/news/3036611-why-heathen-religions-such-as-asatru-are-no-place-for-racists

    April 18, 2014 at 4:59 am |
  4. spiritualsavant

    Reblogged this on spiritualsavant and commented:
    "It's hard to get a violent god out of Jesus."

    April 17, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
  5. thefirstdark

    Reblogged this on The Darkness in the Light and commented:
    ....***sighs heavily***...

    April 17, 2014 at 12:56 am |
  6. truthfollower01

    In a debate between Michael Licona and Bart Ehrman in 2009, Dr. Michael Licona indicated the following three statements pertaining to Jesus’s fate and what occurred afterward that are agreed upon by nearly 100% of all scholars in 2009 studying this subject. This includes Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists.

    1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion.

    “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia (“Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)”) on YouTube.

    2. Appearances to the Disciples

    This is short for saying that shortly after Jesus’s death, a number of Jesus’s followers had experiences both individually and in group settings that they perceived were of the risen Jesus who appeared to them.

    “Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his resurrection? I don’t doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don’t have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don’t think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event Galatians 1:18-19).” – from Bart Ehrman’s book, Jesus Interrupted

    3. Appearance to Paul

    Short for saying that Paul had an experience that he perceived was of the risen Jesus appearing to him.

    “”there is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus’ real but glorified body raised from the dead.”
    – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia (“Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)”) on YouTube.

    How do you best explain the data?

    April 16, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
    • Doris

      Nonsense. You are trying to paint a picture of a much greater consensus on your points about supernatural events than really exists. Please provide evidence from atheists regarding their agreement on your points involving supernatural events in the NT. It's also important for the reader to understand that Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, regarding the 2nd and 3rd points here, is acknowledging that from the writings that we have, there is reason to think that the such claims were held by Paul, not that the claims were true.

      There is no solid "data" regarding the resurrection and appearances after death. There are hearsay claims and there are Paul's claims of his own personal experience – that's not solid data which should be expected for extraordinary claims.

      April 16, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
      • G to the T

        "there is reason to think that the such claims were held by Paul, not that the claims were true."

        Indeed. There is a huge difference between being sincere (believing what you say is true) and being factual (accurate).

        April 17, 2014 at 9:25 am |
        • truthfollower01

          G,

          What explanation do you give to best account for the above points?

          Do you believe that the tomb was empty?

          April 17, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Doris,

        If I had to guess, the atheist would not attribute the statements to a supernatural event but would try and appeal to a natural explanation to explain the events. I'm not at all saying that everyone who agrees with the above statements believe in the supernatural. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic leaning towards atheist as he is portrayed in the debate agrees either the statements. What you would need to do is show why Bart Ehrman, along with the majority of other scholars indicated are incorrect on one or more of these points or else give explanation that best explains the points as listed.

        Do you believe the tomb was empty? How would Christianity have gotten off the ground in Jerusalem if not?

        April 17, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • Doris

          truthf: "If I had to guess, the atheist would not attribute the statements to a supernatural event but would try and appeal to a natural explanation to explain the events."

          First of all, we don't know if there were any events. There were claims of events. That's not the same thing.

          truthf: "I'm not at all saying that everyone who agrees with the above statements believe in the supernatural. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic leaning towards atheist as he is portrayed in the debate agrees either the statements."

          I'm not sure what you meant there, but to me it's obvious that Bart is speaking to the consistency of the story and the characters – that he thinks they were sincere, not that he thinks there is any truth to the claims the Paul had heard of.

          truthf: "What you would need to do is show why Bart Ehrman, along with the majority of other scholars indicated are incorrect on one or more of these points or else give explanation that best explains the points as listed."

          1. No, I don't. Extraordinary alleged events require extraordinary evidence if I am to take seriously any claims about them.

          2. You haven't shown anyone from the "majority of scholars indicated" other than Bart and Mr. Licona.

          truthf: "Do you believe the tomb was empty? How would Christianity have gotten off the ground in Jerusalem if not?"

          Well that's a new question. I'm not sure I believe the account of Jesus as related from the Gospels. Regardless, I would say an empty tomb is not in and of itself a supernatural event, so I really don't care about an empty tomb unless someone can come up with greater evidence for the story encompassing the alleged empty tomb event.

          April 17, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          "First of all, we don’t know if there were any events. There were claims of events. That’s not the same thing."

          Something happened, whether you want to go for a conspiracy theory or something else. What exactly is your stance on the data? You would have to explain the reason for the beliefs.

          "I’m not sure what you meant there, but to me it’s obvious that Bart is speaking to the consistency of the story and the characters – that he thinks they were sincere,"

          Yes, he believes they were sincere. Exactly.

          "not that he thinks there is any truth to the claims the Paul had heard of."

          Bart Ehrman would reject the supernatural. What claims are you referring to that Paul heard of?

          "1. No, I don’t. Extraordinary alleged events require extraordinary evidence if I am to take seriously any claims about them."

          Sounds similar to the David Hume allegation. But think about this. What is the best explanation? What do you propose?

          2. You haven’t shown anyone from the “majority of scholars indicated” other than Bart and Mr. Licona.

          A list may be able to be attained from either the ministry of Michael Licona or Dr. Habermas as to who was polled but let me ask you. Let's say I did provide you with the list of names. Would that really change anything in your mind or would you just dismiss it and move to something else? There is no doubt that this is truly the scholarly view (as of the time of the debate). Are you looking for someone other than Bart Ehrman? Do you disagree with Bart on this data?

          "Well that’s a new question. I’m not sure I believe the account of Jesus as related from the Gospels."

          Keep in mind that in all 4 of the Gospels, a man named Joseph of Arimathea is referenced as one who buried Jesus in his own tomb. Joseph was a "prominent member of the council" (Mark 15:43). This was the council that had determined to kill Jesus. It is highly unlikely that this story is a Christian invention. Think about it. What we have is a member of the council that condemned Jesus being one to bury Jesus.

          "Regardless, I would say an empty tomb is not in and of itself a supernatural event, so I really don’t care about an empty tomb unless someone can come up with greater evidence for the story encompassing the alleged empty tomb event."

          All data need to be accounted for.

          April 18, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
    • bostontola

      1. Is an exaggeration. Almost all historical facts from the last 500 years are more certain.
      2&3 are hearsay. 2 is hearsay that was stale for decades. 3 was the perception of an experience as reported to someone else.

      Only point 1 would be considered evidence at all, and it is not evidence of Jesus being a God, thousands of people were crucified.

      April 17, 2014 at 12:00 am |
      • truthfollower01

        1. You'd have to take that up with historian and one of the leading New Testament critics in the world, Bart Ehrman. Do you personally deny this historically?

        Did you know that the first century source Clement docu-ments the deaths of Peter and Paul and first century source Josephus docu-ments the death of Jesus' brother James? Do you deny these also? Paul, himself indicates in his own letter (1 Corinthians 15) that Jesus appeared to him (verse 8). 1 Corinthians is one of the seven indisputable epistles of Paul according to Bart Ehrman. See 1 Corinthians 15:11 concerning Paul's testimony that other believers were preaching. They truly believed Jesus had risen.

        Are you saying that the majority of historians indicated including Bart Ehrman are wrong on points 2 and 3?

        April 17, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
        • Doris

          Clement and Josephus are hearsay "historians".

          Again, I believe you are misrepresenting Bart Ehrman's view on your points 2 & 3.

          April 17, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
    • kudlak

      truthfollower01
      There are people alive today who believe that they were abducted by aliens. Some have even passed lie detector tests, yet that doesn't stop most people from discounting their claims as some kind of delusion, right?

      April 17, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Kudlak,

        So your position is that all of these people (including the church persecutor Paul and skeptic James) had delusions (hallucinations?) at various times in various settings, all in agreement with one another?

        Do you believe the tomb was empty? Surely it would have had to have been for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem. What do you put forward as having happened to Jesus' body?

        April 17, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
      • kudlak

        truthfollower01
        You're making a lot of assumptions. All we have are accounts written long after the alleged events. Anyone can write an account that all agrees, but I'm not even sure that they actually do. Anyone can also say that such and such were witnesses to Jesus being alive after being crucified, that some 500 people all saw him at once, and so forth.. Maybe Paul was just repeating something that he heard from someone else? Maybe he made it up? Who actually knows? Paul never goes into details about his supposed Damascus Road experience in his letters. Maybe "Luke" coloured up that story a bit? He's the only one reporting on it, and he was Paul's buddy, so you can hardly call him impartial.

        I have no problem with Jesus being crucified. Lots of Jews were back then. The typical crucifixion lasted for days. Jesus was only on the cross for hours, and his legs were never broken, which was the Roman way of quickening death. The guy who pronounced his death was also the centurion who declared him the son of God, indicating that he was likely a follower. Josephus even reports of someone surviving crucifixion, so it was possible that he wasn't even really dead when he was sealed away.

        Then again, maybe he was actually dead and the body was stolen. All we have are the contradictory reports of what people first discovered at the empty tomb. Women wouldn't go to anoint a body in a tomb that they expected to be sealed without some strong men to help move the rock, right? Only Matthew mentions a guard, and a curious story that they were bribed to say that Jesus' disciples had taken his body. Who would have witnessed that conversation, I wonder? No guard in the other gospels means that anyone could have taken the body.

        Even if you had all four gospels telling the exact same story (which they certainly do not) all of them could be tapping into a common legend that had decades to get established.

        How did it manage to get off the ground then? Well, ask yourself how any of the other mystery cults managed to gain followings? Did Mithras have to be a real person? Did Isis have to be a local goddess? There were many such cults popular with the gentile subjects of Rome. Christianity benefitted from having the synagogues to help it spread in the beginning as just another flavour of Judaism. By the time the followers of Jesus were no longer welcome in them Paul had made Christianity popular amongst the gentiles. Churches replaced family for many people living away from their homelands within the Empire. It was no great miracle that it managed to get off the ground. Anything and almost everything was available as a religious belief in Rome.

        April 17, 2014 at 9:37 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Kudlak,

          "All we have are accounts written long after the alleged events."

          Let's look at Paul as our source, in particular 1 Corinthians (one if the seven indisputable epistles of Paul according to Bart Ehrman). 1 Corinthians was written A.D. 55, about plus 25 years from the cross. This is certainly not "long after the alleged events". It gets even better.

          "Anyone can also say that such and such were witnesses to Jesus being alive after being crucified, that some 500 people all saw him at once, and so forth.. Maybe Paul was just repeating something that he heard from someone else?"

          New Testament critic and historian Bart Ehrman indicates that the credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be traced to 1 year after the cross. I have included the verses below.

          1 Corinthians 15:-7

          3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

          If you would like more info on this I would suggest watching "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars – Gary Habermas at UCSB" on YouTube.

          "Paul never goes into details about his supposed Damascus Road experience in his letters."

          He does claim in 1 Cor. 9:1 to have seen the Lord and in 1 Cor. 15:8 that the Lord appeared to him.

          "Jesus was only on the cross for hours, and his legs were never broken, which was the Roman way of quickening death. The guy who pronounced his death was also the centurion who declared him the son of God, indicating that he was likely a follower."

          Okay, so it seems you are taking this as truth, which is good. In the story, Jesus' is pierced to ensure death. Also consider the beating He endured before ever making it to the cross. Isaiah 52:14 indicates the disfigurement of Jesus that would take place. The centurion only declared Him the Son of God after He died. The centurion saw how Jesus died (gave up His own Spirit for it was His power to do so) and what else took place (earthquake).

          "Josephus even reports of someone surviving crucifixion, so it was possible that he wasn’t even really dead when he was sealed away."

          And you would believe that if Jesus never really died (swoon theory), Jesus would be able to convince his followers that He'd risen from the dead in His condition?!? How would He have rolled the stone away? How does this account for Paul's conversion?

          "Then again, maybe he was actually dead and the body was stolen."

          How does this coincide with the initial points 2 and 3? It doesn't. The early believers and Paul truly believed that they saw the risen Jesus.

          "Women wouldn’t go to anoint a body in a tomb that they expected to be sealed without some strong men to help move the rock, right?"

          "2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”" – Mark 16:2,3

          "Even if you had all four gospels telling the exact same story (which they certainly do not) all of them could be tapping into a common legend that had decades to get established."

          Remember that Christian creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that Bart Ehrman dates to 1 year after the cross. As verse 3 shows, Paul "received" this.

          As far as getting off the ground, all the authorities would have had to do was produce the body of Jesus and the movement would have been quashed. They couldn't though because the body was gone.

          What best explains all of the data. It's that Jesus truly rose from the dead, just as He said He would.

          April 19, 2014 at 2:35 am |
  7. Tuscany Dream

    Test

    April 16, 2014 at 9:29 pm |
    • Tuscany Dream

      I passed!

      Fear me.

      April 16, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        See Luke 12:4,5

        April 16, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • Tuscany Dream

          Is those the verses where Luke tells truthfollower1 she must be devoid a sense of humor?

          April 17, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • Tuscany Dream

          Lol. *Are* those the verses..

          April 17, 2014 at 11:47 am |
  8. bostontola

    A believer in God said on this blog: "It takes a lot of faith to confidently proclaim that something does not exist."

    I ask believers: Do you think it takes a lot of faith to confidently proclaim giant flying fire breathing dragons don't exist?

    I don't. They would have to defy laws of biophysics. It's not hard to be confident that some things don't exist now that we have scientific understanding. We don't have to know everything to know that some things are not possible, or that some things are false because they conflict with what we have confirmed and verified.

    April 16, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
    • guidedans

      Wow, Whoever said that line you quoted sounds like a very handsome man.

      Anyway, Giant Fire-Breathing Dragons might exist somewhere in the universe. It would not be out of the realm of possibilities for a creature to evolve into a giant, lizard-like beast that produces a flammable chemical that reacts to the air and ignites upon existing the creature.

      I am not going to stand on any street corners proclaiming that dragons don't exist. I definitely am not going to go onto belief-blogs and proclaim it. i just don't have enough information to make that claim and I probably never will.

      Here's a thought: if there are an infinite number of universes, and there is even a small chance that God could exist, then wouldn't He have to exist in a number of these universes?

      April 16, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
      • bostontola

        Handsome and brilliant. ; )

        Speculation grows to wild speculation.

        Can you confidently proclaim there are no giant fire breathing dragons on earth? The rest of my OP still applies.

        April 16, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        @guidedans,
        I would have thought that your God would exist or not regardless of the number of universes, not being a contingent being supposedly and therefore not susceptible to the rules of probability.

        April 16, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
    • kevinite

      Doesn't the responses to your question depend on what each individual believes in the first place? Out of those you asked, how many actually believed in fire breathing dragons in the first place? Among those who didn't believe in fire breathing dragons, would it have be easier to proclaim that fire breathing dragons do not exist than those who do believe in fire breathing dragons?

      In other words what does all of these "surveys" has to do with anything regarding understanding what is the truth? Just how is truth determined by majority vote? How does majority consensus in the present deter any possible paradigm shifts that might come along to challenge the currently established consensus?

      April 17, 2014 at 2:22 am |
    • StevePage

      And yet almost every culture has a story about dragons and/or pictures and statues of dragons. If we can have electric eels and such I suppose dragons are possible as well.

      April 17, 2014 at 7:13 am |
      • G to the T

        Possible, but not probable. For me, that's the same view I have on god and the supernatural in general.

        April 17, 2014 at 7:29 am |
      • bostontola

        Almost every culture thought the earth was flat, is that possible? Electric eels break no natural laws, giant flying dragons as described by the stories of men do.

        April 17, 2014 at 7:39 am |
        • kevinite

          That does somehow remind me about watching some fakeumentary on Discovery a few years back kind of like they did on Mermaids where they made it look like how a flying fire breathing dragon could be scientifically plausible.

          April 17, 2014 at 9:52 am |
  9. darkmagickan

    I would just like to point out that "Odinism" flies directly in the face of everything that Thor and Odin stand for. If idiots like Glenn actually read the Poetic Edda, they would know that. Any true Asatruar (follower of Odin) would want nothing to do with an "Odinist".

    April 16, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
    • Tuscany Dream

      I have my doubts that Cross could read, period.

      April 16, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
  10. new-man

    Do not be co.nformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new att.itude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].

    "It is the WORD of God that renews your mind; that causes you to think Godly things, that causes you to do what God does; that causes you to live and to become all that God has created you to be.
    It's you, who have to give the WORD permission to do something – to take root, to live and to produce in your life.
    The WORD is the seed and it will produce, and God says He watches over His WORD , to perform it and not one single WORD will return to Him void, but it will accomplish whatever He sends it to do.

    The WORD is powerful, and the wonderful thing about it, it's ALIVE! This means you can read scripture 100 times and it's going to speak to you because it's the living word." -Wendell Parr

    April 16, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
    • bacbik

      Too much unnecessary capitalization.. too much bracketing.. too long.. too boring.. too much BS...

      April 16, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
    • darkmagickan

      Please stop.

      April 16, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
    • Madtown

      It is the WORD of God that renews your mind
      ---
      God has written no word, that we're aware of. It's arrogance that enables human beings to write, and credit the writing to God.

      April 16, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
  11. Doris

    Getting some popcorn and waiting for CNN to add the story to the Belief Blog about rapper Andre Johnson (aka "Christ Bearer") severing his johnson and jumping off a building in an apparent suicide attempt. My goodness, I would think if you're a man and if you're going to try to do yourself in after whacking o... oh wait this isn't going to come out right – I mean after severing your johnson, and think you might not be successful, you've got to understand there are going to be a LOT of questions...

    April 16, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
    • bostontola

      He should have started with not jumping off a 2 story building.

      April 16, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
      • Doris

        Oh – yes well there is nothing sane about this whole report. Well since he's famous and in this situation I guess now he needs a serious team for stars working on his case – maybe Dr. Drew and Ron Jeremy?

        April 16, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
    • Tuscany Dream

      Andre Johnson is to Christ as Charles Manson was to Christ....

      What a loon Johnson is.

      April 16, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
  12. new-man

    In the beginning was the Word [Christ Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

    And the Word [Christ Jesus] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    The Living Word [Christ Jesus] and the written word [Scripture] are in total agreement. There is no disagreement between the Living Word and the written word.
    For the word of God is quick [alive], and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    April 16, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
    • kudlak

      The "written word" is pretty contradictory, contains mistakes and isn't all that great as a story, or as a moral guide. Does that still hold true for Jesus?

      April 16, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
      • new-man

        thanks for your atheist slogan. of course that's all it is and has no bearing on the truth.

        Forever, God's word is settled, i.e. it's a done deal. It's settled in heaven, it's settled with me, and that's good enough for me.

        April 16, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • kudlak

          new-man
          Can you demonstrate how it has no bearing on the truth? Don't just give an automatic "nope", argue it out for me. Give your samples and I'll give my counter-examples. What do you say?

          April 16, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • new-man

          simple:
          The Word of God is truth. Jesus is truth, the written word is truth.
          The entire universe hinges on the word of God, because it is the word of God that sustains this universe, so for the Bible to be wrong on one single point, this whole universe would collapse into nothingness. The WORD of God is that potent! It is that powerful.
          It's His word that created or brought forth the things which were unseen into the visible/physical realm.
          The WORD (Jesus and Scripture) is the expression of God's Power and His Word is LIFE and TRUTH.

          April 16, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • Doris

          lol. I love how theists use the work "truth" like it's something they bought in bulk at Costco....

          April 16, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • Madtown

          simple:
          The Word of God is truth.
          --–
          Well, not so simple, since God has not written any word that we're aware of.

          April 16, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • sam stone

          of course, you know The Truth.

          nothing but arrogance coming from the theist side

          April 17, 2014 at 6:03 am |
        • kudlak

          new-man

          "The Word of God is truth. Jesus is truth, the written word is truth."

          "True" by what standard? What it says in the Bible? And the Bible is true just because it says that it's true? Surely you aren't offering that bit of circular logic, are you?

          April 17, 2014 at 11:23 am |
    • new-man

      My son, attend [pay attention] to my WORDS; incline thine ear unto my sayings. Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.

      And Jesus replied to him, It is written, Man shall not live and be sustained by (on) bread alone but by every WORD and expression of God.

      The word of God is for consumption daily. One doesn't read the word once and think they know God. In the same manner a person starves from lack of eating, in the same manner his spirit starves from lack of daily feeding on the word of God.

      Your words were found, and I ate them; and Your words were to me a joy and the rejoicing of my heart, for I am called by Your name, O Lord God of hosts.

      April 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
    • hotairace

      In the beginning there were no gods and no religion and then some desert dwellers started writing a story and the delusions continue to this day.

      April 16, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Hotairace,

        "In the beginning God..." – Genesis 1:1

        April 16, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
        • djangoboy

          So said the desert dwellers ...

          April 16, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
        • sam stone

          wow, new-man....you can quote a book! con-fvcking-gratulations

          that must make you a godly person

          now, boy, go home and get your fvcking shinebox

          April 17, 2014 at 6:09 am |
  13. Dyslexic doG

    Christians stop telling us Atheists to read the bible. All Atheists have read the bible for ourselves ... then after we had wiped the tears from our eyes and the laughter had subsided, we knew there was no god.

    For all you primitive slave minds that still believe, we will wait for you to die out. Your children have all either stopped believing or will soon stop believing as they have unlimited open access to real factual information outside your cult bubble that once bewitched people before the information age arrived and rescued us.

    A couple more generations and the christian sky fairy will be in a category with Thor and Zeus as a quaint primitive supersti.tion.

    April 16, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
    • bostontola

      I would say that after reading the bibles, I was sure that the biblical God(s) were false. Same is true for the Gods of every other religion i have explored. I can't really have strong conviction on a deist God, but I believe there is none.

      April 16, 2014 at 5:59 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      " Christians stop telling us Atheists to read the bible."

      Perhaps if you stop frequenting a BELIEF BLOG on which you attempt, with great ferocity, to vilify and castigate a being you don't even believe exists, you will get your wish.

      April 16, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
      • kudlak

        Theists believe that God is real and atheists believe that they are wrong. Both are beliefs, yes?

        It's precisely because we do read the Bible, all of the Bible, and without the imaginative spin that many apologists like to add to the troublesome parts, that we know the god of the Bible for the villain that he is.

        April 16, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • new-man

          truthfully, when was the last time you read the Bible?

          April 16, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
        • kudlak

          I read it all the time. I've quoted it in this blog many times, usually parts that directly contradict something somebody like you is saying. The Bible says what it says, and the God in it isn't any kind of "loving" father. If that isn't clear to you then you have to stop just accepting what the apologists are feeding you and read the book for yourself. All of it!

          April 16, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • new-man

          I feed on the Word of God for myself! The Word of God is settled forever, He never has and never will need an apologist!
          Clearly my God is not your god. God nor His WORD does not need my defense, He is the great I AM – defender, protector, provider, whatever is needed for any situation.

          A person's understanding has to be opened up so that they can understand scripture. So it's one thing to read the scripture, it's quite another to understand it. It's the person you disregard who is needed to open your mind in order to understand His Word. Funny thing that!
          "Then He [thoroughly] opened up their minds to understand the Scriptures"

          April 16, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • Madtown

          I feed on the Word of God for myself!
          --
          That sounds good. Where can I find this, I'd like to read it too? We have the bible, but that's just the word of man, concerning some opinions he has about what God may be like. I'd like the real thing.

          April 16, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • kudlak

          new-man
          Why are you here defending God then? Seriously, if he doesn't need your defence, why are you here providing one, even if it isn't a particularly good defence?

          I have no need for a god.

          "Understand" scripture by accepting whatever meaning pops into your head, believing that it actually came from some third-part of God? How is that any more likely to be true than just assuming that your dreams and experiences of deja vu are memories of your past lives? You could find yourself in a room of a dozen other Christians all feeling that the Spirit is guiding their interpretation just as strongly as you do and still disagree on the "meaning" of a verse. You would assume that they are just making stuff up in their own heads just as they would assume the same of you. You can't all be tapping into the same outside source, but you sure can all be imagining you are, correct?

          April 17, 2014 at 11:19 am |
  14. thefinisher1

    What's so special about atheism? Why do you atheists treat atheism like it's so important? In times of trouble, what does atheism do? Nothing. So why mankind become atheist? Your atheism does nothing but sits there and let's people suffer.

    Where is your atheism now?

    April 16, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • Alias

      There is good reason to think your god does not exist.
      Now, apply that to all the other major religions.
      Atheism is what we have left. It is obviously The Truth.
      When are you going to stop living your lies?

      April 16, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Stop living in your made up fantasy world and see the truth. Atheism is a hoax. It's not logical. It's irrational. Admit it and you are one step closer to a better life 😃😊😄😊😄

        April 16, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          LOLOLOLOLOL

          April 16, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
        • djangoboy

          My life is just fine, thank you very much. It's been much better since I stopped believing in supernatural beings, based on a total lack on convincing evidence for their existence.

          April 16, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
      • guidedans

        Wait, what "good" reason is there?

        You don't like Hell? You think God should intervene more? You met a Christian who wasn't very nice one time?

        You have no "good" reason to think that God doesn't exist. You just have your biases that lead you to that conclusion.

        April 16, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • Alias

          DNA disproves Adam and Eve, as well as the Flood Story.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • Alias

          The whole jesus being sacrificed is a logical failure.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
        • Alias

          There are so many different interpretatoins of the bible I don't see how you camn say it is the word of any god.
          Not to mention there are several different bibles.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          However..thereis one good interpretaiotn of the Bible..that is in context....using context will help....as to the "different Bibles" are you referring to the different translations? (KJV, NIV, etc?)

          April 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Alias

          Every civilizatoin had a god, or gods. Why should I accept yours over any of the others?

          April 16, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • Alias

          Look at the history of the catholic church over the last 1,000 years.
          How can you claim it is a good or holy organization?
          At what point do you think the pope connected with god?
          Even if your current faction doesn't follow the pope, this is where all christian faiths started out.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Alias

          @kermit
          No. The different denominations include/exclude some different books in their bibles.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the central message is still there....al lcontain pretty much the four Gospels..etc etc...youre referring to the additoin of such things as the Apocrypha and such.....deoending on the denominaiotns.....some are considereed as supplimental reading..while others coinsider the Apocrypha as Canon, receiving same treatment (ie it is authoritative) as the Scriptures....so really..depends on who yo uare talking about and how they use the "other books"

          April 16, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • Alias

          @kermit
          Exactly my point.
          it isn't even clear what is supposed to be in the bible, how are we expected to believe it is the infallable word of the one true god?

          April 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          actually it can be clear...read the history of how the NT was put together...brian H Edwards "Why 27"

          April 16, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
        • Alias

          I don't see your reasoning.
          If it was clear, there would only be one version of the bible.
          The fact that different groups have different bibles proves my point.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          that is to assume man is perfect though....the Bible is clear and which should be put in..you seem to forget man will have niases go before reason..etc....such as catholic Church...they pretty much only added the Apocrypha in response to the Protestant mocvement to "back up" their claims of such things a purgatory and paying indulgences. Again..read Brian Edwards book

          April 16, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • guidedans

          Alias,

          None of the reasons you listed for not believing in God were good. They may be good reasons (in your mind) for not believing in the Bible, but not for denying God's existence.

          You just don't like Christianity as a religion. That is fine, but you should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Maybe you should read the Bible for yourself and see what it has to say for yourself. Maybe there is some good stuff in there that you are missing.

          Here is a good reason to believe in God: If there is no God, then nothing matters. If you want to believe that things matter in the world, you should believe in God.

          April 16, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          all Atheists have read the bible for ourselves ... then after we had wiped the tears from our eyes and the laughter had subsided, we knew there was no god.

          For all you primitive slave minds that still believe, we will wait for you to die out. Your children have all either stopped believing or will soon stop believing as they have unlimited open access to real factual information outside your cult bubble that once bewitched people before the information age arrived and rescued us.

          A couple more generations and the christian sky fairy will be in a category with Thor and Zeus as a quaint primitive supersti.tion.

          April 16, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          @dog..LMAO....Im wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes....people like yuo been saying that for more than 2000 years now..and it aint going away..wishful thinking on your part

          April 17, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • Doris

          @guidedans – if one has good reason to not believe in the god of the Bible, then they have good reason not to believe in the God of Abraham, right? So why believe in some unspecified god or some god other than the God of Abraham? Why would you recommend a different one?

          April 16, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
        • Tuscany Dream

          Kermit, do you think Brian H Edwards is THE leading authority on how the NT books were decided upon? No. He's just another apologist.
          Look for other sources besides the latest apologetics book.

          April 16, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
        • Tuscany Dream

          @kermit, Revelation is Apocrypha. Revelation was added in 397, during the Council of Carthage...not in the 1500's...is you're talking about Luther's translation into German, that's not the sane thing as it being a later add-on to the NT.

          April 16, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Revelation..as in the end of the NT is not Apocrypha..yuomay be confused..there are several books called Apocrypha...as Apocrypha of Peter or such....the Apocrypha are pretty much Books from before the NT and was "added" at times to the OT

          April 17, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • G to the T

          " If there is no God, then nothing matters"

          If there is no God, then EVERYTHING matters. If there is no eternal justice, it means we must do everything in our power to see that justice exits in the here-and-now.

          April 17, 2014 at 7:39 am |
        • kermit4jc

          @ Tuscany if you actually read my posts..I was saying he was ONE of them..nto the ONLY one..Im only saying this at top of my head..i read many others...and if you like..Read Brian ~Edwards Book for yourtself to see convincing arguments

          April 17, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          @ Tusacny...also..in FACT reve.ations was NOT added at the council..NOR was ANY of the Books of NT added at any other councils..this shows lack of knowledge of history...the FACT is..they only CONFirmeD what was already accepted by the church at large.......all 27 Books of the nT were already accepted by the church as a whole by about 275 AD...long before the councils.....

          April 17, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • The Answer is 42

          Baloney, Kermit. You are going by what one author said. He isn’t an authority. He wrote a book. Big deal. Also, just google Apocrypha in the NT and you will SEE that Revelation is Apocrypha in the truest sense of the meaning.

          I know you don’t like being wrong, but you are. Sorry. This is what happens when you just blindly take the word of the most recent book you read.

          April 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          ok..be dishonest in your reading of my posts then..I said I read AL lkinds..and this ONE book was not the only one..it was the one that I can think of off the top of my head..if you want to be snide and arrogant ahnd beyond skeptical of that..thats your problem..not mine....I know what I read...if you cant accept it..get your head out of the sand someday ok?

          April 18, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          lol...you GOOGLED? you got some erroneous info then bud here is FACT the list of the Apocryphal books
          •1 and 2 Esdras
          •Tobit*
          •Judith*
          •Wisdom of Solomon*
          •Sirach* (also called Ecclesiasticus)
          •Baruch*
          •Letter of Jeremiah
          •Song of the Three Young Men
          •Susanna
          •Bel and the Dragon
          •Prayer of Manasseh
          •1 and 2 Maccabees*
          •Additions to the book of Esther*
          •Additions to the book of Daniel*
          hehehe I do NOT see Revelation in it..i doubt you really looed at any of the sites when yo ugoogled....yo ujust looked at the list of results....in fact..in the next post I will give you some links to show you

          April 18, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          here are some links on the Apocrypha
          http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/qt/Apocrypha.htm
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

          April 18, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
    • bostontola

      What's so special about atheism? Nothing.

      Why do you atheists treat atheism like it's so important? They don't.

      In times of trouble, what does atheism do? Nothing.

      So why mankind become atheist? Because they don't believe in God(s).

      Your atheism does nothing but sits there and let's people suffer.
      Atheism isn't an organization, that's like saying; literature just sits there and lets people suffer. There are many secular organizations that perform charitable, medical, educational, etc. functions that an atheist can join to help the less fortunate. Atheists are not limited to secular organizations, I give my time to a number of church organizations to tutor kids in math and science, to pack food boxes, etc.

      Where is your atheism now? In some people's minds.

      April 16, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • guidedans

        I think that the finisher is commenting on how the atheists are extremely passionate about something that they claim not to believe in. If you guys really treated atheism like a lack of a belief, e.g., "I don't believe in God," we would of course disagree with you, but that would be the end of it.

        Where we get frustrated is when Atheists move from, "I don't believe in God" to "I believe that God does not exist"

        Those are two very different statements. The first is a negative belief about something, while the second is a positive belief that that things does not exist.

        When an Atheist expresses the second sentiment, it is, in our minds, just as, if not more irrational than our belief IN God.

        It takes a lot of faith to confidently proclaim that something does not exist.

        April 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
        • bostontola

          To believe that no God exists is not the same as knowing God doesn't exist. To not believe in God is almost the same as believing God doesn't exist. The only difference is if you have no beliefs for or against (pure agnostic).

          Why would you be frustrated by anything somebody believes and doesn't try to force you to believe?

          April 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • guidedans

          From the sounds of some of these atheists on these boards, it sounds like some of them DO want to force me to believe what they believe.

          "Wait for the Christians to die out"

          In their perfect world, there would be no Christians. Isn't that basically wanting to force me to abandon my beliefs?

          Just like you all try to stop Christians from ruining the world, we are trying to stop you all from ruining the world.

          That's why checks and balances work. They stop anything from getting done.

          April 16, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • bostontola

          guide,
          I think that is a very strong overstatement. Making a prediction about the future, a speculation, is in no way forcing someone else into a belief. Using the political system to preclude marriage of some people, that is forcing beliefs.

          April 16, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
        • kudlak

          guidedans
          In many cases, it's the people who are most passionate about the subject of God and religion who end up becoming atheists because we actually are interested in the learning the details of a faith. Learning details leads to discovering contradictions, falsehoods, misrepresentations, and glossed-over atrocities, and this often leads to a loss of faith. As they say, the surest path to becoming an atheist is actually reading the Bible for yourself, not letting someone else tell you what it says.

          April 16, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          @ kudiak..i find your sdtatemtn top be arrogant and blanket.....I am passionate about learning the bibkle..i teach it as well..thus I have to sutdy before I teach..and I find no contradictions (except for minor errors like did Solomon have this many horses, when another account says a different number of horses..those are far and few in between and they do not change the story one bit..Im not like many atheists who throw the baby out with the bath water..I actually read and STUDY the Bibole for myself....poh..and dont tell me I do wishful thinking..that I want it this way..so I make up excuses for the contradictions....I want truth..and I accept truth where I find it....Im an honest seeker

          April 17, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          There's a difference between throwing the baby out with the bathwater and not wanting to throw out the bathwater at all. Sure, there are some good parts in the Bible, and even some rather unique bits of wisdom, but the same can be said about the works and sayings of Homer, Confucius, the Buddha, and many other ancient sources.

          Most Christians separate out a "baby" of Christian belief out of the entire Bible, throwing out the bathwater of the kosher Law, genocides, failings of godly men such as David, and so on. They cherry-pick what they want to keep, but they also insist on keeping the bathwater handy, maybe because it's useful to throw at people they don't like?

          I get that you read the bible for yourself, but where do you get your STUDY materials? In my wildest imagination I could not come up with some of the off text justifications I've heard you make here. Down below you claim to know that the Gospels were written by actual eyewitnesses. How on Earth do you know that? The Gospels don't even name who wrote them. You're just buying into some tradition invented by somebody else.

          April 17, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          its research my friend...we can have a pretty good idea who the writers are...for instance...irenaues says that writer of 1 John was John the Apostile..Irenaeus was a student of Papias who was a student of John the Apostle...that's one example....second..I study from a wide resource...from secular and Christian/Jewiosh sources....I cant list them all as I done research for over 25 years..and as I said before..i teach it..thus I have to do research/study before I teach (I cant teach something I don tknow about)

          April 17, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and what off text justifications have you seen me done? please give an example

          April 17, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          How the hell would Irenaeus actually know who wrote 1 John? He lived in the 200s, right? He said he knew a guy who claimed to know John, and you cite that as authoritative? All actual research would have provided you with is this as the source of the tradition or who wrote John, and nothing more definitive than that.

          April 17, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          read my post..it isn't merely Knowing..its being TAUGHT...Papias was taught by John the Apostle..and Irenaeaus was taught by Paoas...OBVIIOUSLY Papias would have told Irenaus who taght him...its a given....the fqact that a person not far tremoved from the NT would have been able to show who the author was most likely to be..AND it also shows that the Epstile of 1 John was not written long after Jesus..since Papias and Irenaus knew of it....

          April 18, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          BTW Irenaeus lived in the mid 100s onward

          April 18, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • kudlak

          kermit4jc
          You stated in a post below:
          "not stupid at all..making a point that God does no tanswer all prayers as a postivie cause Gods knows some things are not good for you as you might think they are."

          If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that God doesn't answer all prayers. Yet, the Bible states...

          "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." (Matthew 7:7)

          "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 18:19)

          "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matthew 21:22)

          "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." (Mark 11:24)

          "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14)

          "And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." (John 16:23)

          "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the peti-tions that we desired of him." (1 John 5:14-15)

          Therefore, you are going off text as Jesus promised that God would answer all prayers, right?

          April 17, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          you read wrong..i said he doe snot always answer in the POSITIVE..sometimes he says no..and those verses you posted..some are followed by CONDITIONS...surely even in Psalms 37 I believe it is..says DELIGHT yourself ion the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart....if you place your value on God..you get to know God...you get to know HOS will for you...and what HE wants for you (which is often times better than what YOU think you should have) thus as I was saying..when yo uget to know Gods will for you..you will want what HE diesires for you

          April 18, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Atheism is an invention of the mind, yes.

        April 16, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • bostontola

          All beliefs are inventions of the mind.

          April 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
        • kudlak

          No more than not seeing zombies anywhere and concluding that they probably don't actually exist.

          April 16, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
    • kudlak

      There's nothing any more special about atheism than not believing in leprechauns, dragons, vampires, or reincarnation. All you need is a healthy skepticism that you apply fairly to all such claims.

      April 16, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
  15. Doris

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yceHh5khkXo

    April 16, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
  16. Salero21

    God's Love and Mercy are Forever not so HIS Patience. God has been long suffering the sinfulness of mankind but HIS Patience is running thin and running out. There is going to be an end to God's Patience and Long suffering.

    April 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • Alias

      If god lives outside of out space/time then patience is unnecessary and infinite.

      April 16, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
      • Salero21

        HIS Patience and Long Suffering is related and in relation to our Finite existence, and that of the present Creation. Your gibberish confuses the issues, which again is Evidence/proof of what I'be been saying all along.

        April 16, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • Alias

          I thought we were created in his image? If he is suffering it seems you overestimate his abilities.

          April 16, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • Doris

      "God has been long suffering the sinfulness of mankind"

      Suffering? How so? Is mankind's ways keeping your god from making his mortgage payment on time?

      April 16, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
      • Salero21

        Pro 14:1 The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands.

        April 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          "Hearing voices no one else can hear isn’t a good sign, even in the wizarding world."
          -Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

          April 16, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Ignorance is bliss and patience is a virtue. So if you're stupid and you don't mind waiting around alot, you can have a pretty good life." – My Dad

          April 16, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
      • kermit4jc

        suffering is an english word.....God is long suffering...not that he suffers..but that he is patient and waiting.....

        April 16, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • igaftr

      Yes, people imagine a lot about their gods, but in reality you simply don't know.

      April 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      how do you know this?

      April 16, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
  17. Salero21

    Hello there my dear Frenemies atheists/evolutionists/idolaters/pagans etc. etc. & etc.

    Just sitting here for a few minutes, facing my PC Monitor and seeing the Overwhelming Evidence pile on top of more Evidence that atheism/evolutionism/idolatry/paganism etc. are all Absolute, Complete and Total NON-SENSE.

    There is only One God and only One MEDIATOR between God and Mankind, that is Jesus Christ the man.

    April 16, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
    • snuffleupagus

      Sombrero 6 &1/2, loosen up that thing, it's squeezing out one of the three brains cells you have. You might try a bigger size, like 6 & 9/16ths. You are, as usual, full of self-righteous bullschit.

      April 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
      • Salero21

        Can't disprove neither refute what I said huh pea brain! Therefore the only thing left for you to do is the usual mockery. Which is one more piece of Evidence of the Total Stupidity of atheism/evolutionism/idolatry etc. You really are a good example of it; aren't you?

        April 16, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • Akira

          You posted no facts to refute.

          April 16, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Salero ... why did you name yourself a salt shaker?

          April 16, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
    • rosenj72

      There's a great book called "300 Times 0" on Amazon which discusses the supposed 300 prophecies of Jesus from the Original Hebrew scriptures. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the topic of how the false deity of Jesus became mistranslated and pulled out of the Bible to fit a concept of Jewish Messiah which never existed. Fascinating book on the creation of Christianity.

      http://www.amazon.com/300-Times-examination-prophecies-Jesus-ebook/dp/B00BDFMLAI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397677929&sr=8-1&keywords=300+times+0

      April 16, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • Alias

        A book based on Facts?
        How do you expect the theists to debate with somone who has facts to support their position?

        April 16, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
  18. bostontola

    Objective evidence for and against God (proof is not accessible now).

    First, you have to ask which God. I'll simplify by creating 2 categories, 1) Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, or any God that has been written about as having exerted supernatural power after creation and/or interacted with humans, and 2) Any creator that is behind the scenes (i.e. does not interfere in any natural events post creation, much less human events).

    Category 2 God(s) has equal objective evidence for and against, none.

    Category 1 Gods have enormous amounts of objective evidence against them (from their own written texts), and very tenuous objective evidence for them (pretty much the same texts, suspect since they were written by primitive people with little understanding of the natural world and so they created various supernatural worlds to explain things). There is simply no objective evidence of a supernatural event ever having taken place after creation (and there is no evidence that creation was supernatural, but that is another story that is only a distraction since the argument is inconclusive). Category 1 Gods as written have so little chance of reality, that they should be dismissed.

    April 16, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Bostontola,

      In a debate between Michael Licona and Bart Ehrman in 2009, Dr. Michael Licona indicated the following three statements pertaining to Jesus's fate and what occurred afterward that are agreed upon by nearly 100% of all scholars in 2009 studying this subject. This includes Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists.

      1. Jesus' death by crucifixion.

      "One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

      2. Appearances to the Disciples

      This is short for saying that shortly after Jesus's death, a number of Jesus's followers had experiences both individually and in group settings that they perceived were of the risen Jesus who appeared to them.

      "Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his resurrection? I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don't have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event Galatians 1:18-19)." – from Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted

      3. Appearance to Paul

      Short for saying that Paul had an experience that he perceived was of the risen Jesus appearing to him.

      ""there is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus' real but glorified body raised from the dead."
      – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.

      How do you best explain the data?

      April 16, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • G to the T

        Jesus lived and was crucified. His followers believed they saw him after their death (as greiving people often do). Paul likely had a seizure and believed he saw Jesus as well.

        Ehrman doesn't doubt their sincerity, he doubts their accuracy.

        April 16, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          bad argument..first of all..they didnt merely SEe him..they spent time with Him..secondly...there were other people with Paul..did they have some sort of seizure as well? no..they didnt understand the voice..or see Jesus..but they heard something and saw something....so apparently your theories dont work

          April 16, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          Bart doesnt do a very good argument with his research.....there is no reason to doubt the accuracy as the accounts all agree

          April 16, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Alias

          At least by the time they got written down (by someone who was clearly biased) they all agreed.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          they were not written by one person....the four Gospels were written by four different people...

          April 16, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          G,

          So you basically believe they all hallucinated at various times and in various settings? You believe Paul had a seizure and believed he saw Jesus?!?! You've got to be joking. Do you believe the tomb was empty? All the authorities would have had to do was present the body to quash the Christian movement. Also, don't forget about James, Jesus' brother, whom Josephus records as being killed?

          April 16, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • G to the T

          "So you basically believe they all hallucinated at various times and in various settings?"
          I believe one or more of them had an experience it was embellished over time before being set down in the gospels we have today.

          "You believe Paul had a seizure and believed he saw Jesus?!?! You've got to be joking."
          I believe it's more probable than the alternative. And the descriptions of Paul's experience (and most especially those of the people who traveled with him) changed in the telling (did they see a light but hear nothing, see and hear, see and hear nothing?, etc.).

          "Do you believe the tomb was empty? All the authorities would have had to do was present the body to quash the Christian movement."
          The tomb may have been empty. Which is more probable though – one of his followers removed the body to we know not where or he was ressurected? For me there are a lot of possibile scenarios that seem much more likley than the supernatural one.

          "Also, don't forget about James, Jesus' brother, whom Josephus records as being killed?"
          And? You lost me on this one.

          April 17, 2014 at 9:32 am |
      • bostontola

        I don't consider hearsay testimony objective evidence.

        April 16, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • G to the T

          Agreed. Our senses are too fallible to take a single person's word on any particular event at face value. And the more extraordinary the occurence, the more we should ask for independant confirmation.

          April 16, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
      • Doris

        "nearly 100% of all scholars in 2009 studying this subject. This includes Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists"

        I guess 51% could be "nearly 100%" if truthf can even provide a reference for that. Also, truthf should provide evidence of atheists that agree with the "statements" so we can see what kind of representation there really is for the claim. I'm at least glad to see truthf's revision from "facts" (in almost identical previous posts) to "statements".

        April 16, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Doris,

          The reference is in the debate between Michael Licona and Bart Ehrman as seen on YouTube. It may be possible to attain a list of the scholars involved by contacting Michael Licona or Dr. Gary Habermas, but I wonder, even if you had the list, would it really change anything in your mind? You seem to use Bart Ehrman as a point of reference (I've seen you post his video before). What's wrong with what he agrees with. How do you explain the data? Also, the word "facts" is used in the debate. I just used the word "statements" above.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
      • djangoboy

        Data?
        "a number of Jesus's followers had experiences both individually and in group settings that they PERCEIVED were of the risen Jesus who appeared to them."
        "Paul had an experience that he PERCEIVED was of the risen Jesus appearing to him."

        Subjective perceptions hardly qualify as data.

        April 16, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Clement is a first century source for the deaths of Paul and Peter. Josephus is a first century source for the death of James, the brother of Jesus. Liars make poor martyrs.

          April 16, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Liars make poor martyrs."

          Just ask the guys that hijacked the planes in 9/11. By your logic, what they believed is true as well. And Buddhism is real because of the self-immolation martyrdoms of monks in Vietnam.

          April 17, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          your argument dont workl with the 9/11 stuff..those guys ion the plane did nto witness Mohamed.....whereas the ones who wrote of the Gospels and taught of Jesus risemn were eyewitnesses...so the argument you have GT does not work

          April 17, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Why do you insist that validity exists solely in that which is objectively determined? For even objective evidences must be filtered through the subjectivity of reason. One cannot exist without the other in determining truth.

      April 16, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        One mans "truth" can be another mans BS. I know you will never understand this because you have deluded yourself into believing you have discovered the only "truth". Your analogies are pathetic so need to repeat them.

        April 16, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          One mans "truth" can be another mans BS
          -----------
          Someone can certainly believe a lie, but "truth: stands apart from anyone's opinion. Truth cannot be created simply because someone wishes it to be so, and when truth is disbelieved, that disbelief does no damage to the truth. Truth just "is" and there is no such thing as "personal truth."

          April 16, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • G to the T

          "personal truth"

          I think you may be confusing "truth" with reality. You can have a personal truth (as much of what we consider "true" are subjective values that only exist in our heads) but you cannot have a personal reality (well you can, but that's what we call crazy people).

          April 16, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
        • Akira

          Truth just “is” and there is no such thing as “personal truth."

          Yes, you have posted this before. Because you don't agree with it, you discard it.

          And that's your personal truth on that matter, isn't it?

          April 16, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "I think you may be confusing "truth" with "reality."
          ---------
          No, truth is that which is real. If you believe something that isn't true, then it isn't real. Someone can believe their "opinion" but an opinion that contradicts reality isn't a truth.

          April 17, 2014 at 7:33 am |
      • bostontola

        Because objective evidence can be independently verified by multiple different people, greatly reducing the subjective influence.

        April 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • G to the T

          And so far as I know, the scientific method is the only one to account for this issue in it's premises. So if given the choice, I'll go with with science just about every time.

          April 16, 2014 at 3:48 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          That's fine as long as you admit that the scientific method is a severely handicapped method of discovery. The scientific method is experimental, observational, and repeatable. The scientific method is not the most fundamental form of knowledge, as it presupposes other truths such as metaphysics, apprehension, reason, and logic. The scientific method is built upon the limitations of experiments, and since there aren’t an infinite number of experiments that can be conducted, scientific knowledge can never cross the threshold of absolute knowledge.

          A scientific investigator, be he ever so resourceful and brilliant, can neither observe nor repeat many aspects of reality. Things like origins for instance are not observable, testable, nor repeatable. No scientific test can prove the existence of “feeling” or “intuition” within the human consciousness, but no one would deny that they exist.

          It is a mistake to limit reality only to the realm of what can be objectivity proven, when in fact the definition of reality includes “everything that is and has been whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.”

          April 17, 2014 at 7:40 am |
        • igaftr

          wHether or not that is correct or not, there is NO evidence ANYWHERE of any gods, spiritual anything or anything metaphysical. No evidence anywhere. You STILL have concluded some "creator" and go on the presumption you are right, when your above post should tell you that is absurd to leap to your conclusion.

          April 17, 2014 at 8:14 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          igaftr,
          Do you then leap to the conclusion that the origin of our physical universe was somehow itself physical in nature? Even though you can never objectively prove it?

          April 17, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
  19. thefinisher1

    If life is random, why do atheists care if someone murders another human being? They believe we rot in the ground afterwards, so, they are lying when they claim to be more "moral" than the rest. What tells them murder is wrong? And why does their faith(atheism) stand by and let all the evil to happen? I conclude based on the evidence that atheism is a hateful and unloving faith. Ban it. Ban it now.

    April 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      I don't care about your delusional rant...however what exactly do you think you accomplish by doing so? You're dragging people from us, if anything you're pushing them away from religion. You're just crazy and no rational person would wish to be part of a cult that breeds people like you.

      April 16, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Atheism breeds the worst kind of cult. Stupid child.

        April 16, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Based on what, you moron?

          April 16, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Troll along now!

          April 16, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      @thefinisher1: As an atheist who likes to free people from religion, I want to thank you for all your hard work. Your every post is a great tool for atheists everywhere.

      April 16, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        And you are showing are atheism is harmful to the mind and plain irrational. Thank you for your hard work!

        April 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          LOLOLOL

          April 16, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Asinine.

          April 16, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. you're such a joke I can't help laughing.

          April 16, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          You are doing more harm to your own atheism than I ever could! Thank you, Doggie!

          April 16, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          LOLOLOLOLOLOL

          April 16, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • joey3467

          thefinisher, if had to guess just off the posts who is smarter, dog would be Stephen Hawking, and you would be a 5 year old with only half of a functioning brain.

          April 16, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          *genuflect*

          April 16, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          joey...that is an insult to 5 year olds with half a functioning brain!

          April 16, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • joey3467

          You are probably correct, my apologies.

          April 16, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
    • G to the T

      Because I'm a human being maybe? And somone who can kill like this man did could just as easily kill me or someone I care about. Isn't that enough?

      April 16, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Atheism does nothing. It does not benefit mankind. Atheism needs to be banned and protected from our children.

        April 16, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          yes finisher, Atheism definitely needs to be "protected from our children." LOLOLOLOLOLOL

          April 16, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • igaftr

          Theism does nothing. It does not benefit mankind.

          April 16, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          so all the hospitals,science and such done in name of theism never has been beneficial? Providing clothing, work and food for the poor is not beneficial? I don't see atheists doing much of that...sure..maybe a few individual ones..but where is the atheist run hospital?

          April 16, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Atheism does nothing. It does not benefit mankind. Atheism needs to be banned and protected from our children."

          Didn't really answer my question though did you?

          April 16, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          kermit
          There are no hospitals based on theism. They are based on RELIGIONS, not the belief in god itself. They are based on what people believe their god wants, which is not theism, so no THEISM does no good at all.

          See the difference?

          April 16, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Slip up there finisher and go back to one of your other personalities or is it merely coincidence that you and crazy man kermi sound alike?

          April 16, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • Akira

          Kermit,
          I'm sure you're aware that atheists aren't an organized group, like religions; therefore you're not going to see a hospital named "Atheist Hospital".

          Bill Gates's money is being used to build 10 hospitals in Nigeria.
          Doctors Without Borders is non-religious.

          April 16, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          the point was...someone said theism does nobody any good..yet we have hospitals and such organized by theists and in the name of theissts.....and maybe the atheists should get organzied and do such if thewy wanna show they are "better"

          April 16, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Akira

          Kermit,
          You asked "sure..maybe a few individual ones..but where is the atheist run hospital?"
          I was attempting to answer that so you don't have to ask that again.
          Hospitals are a good thing, no matter who is behind its founding.

          April 16, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
    • igaftr

      Finisher
      Our humanity says murder is wrong. The evolved traits of social animals. That humanity has been written into all of the religions in the world. There is a version of the "golden rule" in all religions.

      Nothing in theism addresses if murder is wrong. It simply means belief in gods, and does not address morality. Nothing in athesim addresses morality either.

      You keep attempting to reverse how atheists question religions, but you keep failing to see the glaring logic flaw.

      To do it correctly you would need to compare atheism to theism. You do not do this, so fail each and every time.

      If you try to reverse logic based on religious dogma, you would then need some atheist dogma, which does not exist.

      Stop with your ridiculousness. Hopefully, you will see atheism is simply not believing in gods...the opoosite of THEISM, not religion, which is why your posts always fall short of your goal.

      April 16, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • Alias

      Keep in mind that forcing people to convert to a religion will very likely increase membership in religions other than yours.
      Unless what you really meant was to force everyone to become christian.

      April 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
  20. Dyslexic doG

    If there is "free will" then why would you even bother to pray? Either your god is in control or he is not in control. If there is free will then he is not in control. If he intervenes even once then the whole concept of free will dissolves!

    April 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • workingcopy12

      Guess what kiddo–God has free will too!

      April 16, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

        April 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • otoh2

        workingcopy,

        What's to keep that Hebrew "God" character from changing 'his' mind (repeatedly) in eternity. How can you possibly trust that petulant, psychopathic being?

        April 16, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          the bible promises that he will answer all prayers and he obviously does not ... that god really can't be trusted! What a liar!

          April 16, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          God DoES answer all prayers..a NO is still an answer...sheesh....people too stupid to think an answer always means a yes..even silence is an answer

          April 16, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          and speaking of "stupid", you should read your bible. the promise is that whatever you ask it will be so. The bible doesn't say that god will answer "NO" to you 100% of the time and that you should consider that an answer.

          what a joke!

          April 16, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          UHH..maybe YOU should read MORE of my "stupid " BIble....first anything you ask in JEsUS name..and there were conditions as well....you pretty much cherry picked as typical for people like you....IF you are in Gods will.....there si also a passage in Psalms "Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give youthe desires of your heart " DELIGHT yourself..meaning place value onGod..seek Him and His will..and HIS will becomes YOURS>...see...youonly cherry pick

          April 16, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • otoh2

          kermit,
          "NO is still an answer...sheesh....people too stupid to think an answer always means a yes..even silence is an answer"

          Those are exactly the same results you get when you wish upon a star.

          April 16, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          @Kermit. once again you dodge the point.

          I know the bible. The promise that is reiterated numerous times throughout your book is that whatever you ask of god it will be so. The bible doesn't say that god will answer "NO" to you 100% of the time and that you should consider that an answer.

          what a joke!

          April 16, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          did I say God will answewr no 100 percent of the time???????

          April 16, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...why is the answer to gods faithful ever a no, much less no about a thousand times more than it's a yes? What's the difference between 'no' and ' I don't exist'? Praying to my cat gets me similar results

          April 16, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          what if you asked God to give you a gun so yo ucan kill yourself..you think god is gonna say "Oh sure..why not?"

          April 16, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...stupid argument. A true believer would not be wanting to kill anyone. These people are generally just needing a better quality of life...things that any parent or creator would generally like to step in on to help with. Well....any caring and loving parent. Well...any caring and loving REAL parent.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          not stupid at all..making a point that God does no tanswer all prayers as a postivie cause Gods knows some things are not good for you as you might think they are...plus God has other plans as well...maybe I want to go to Africa, but God says no...then I end up going to India instead to do missionary work.....God has other things in mind for us than what we think ought to happen (Not all the time..but when he says "no")

          April 16, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit....those are extremes and you know it. Praying for food and praying to go to Africa are completely different. Why would a loving and caring parent deny the prayers of a child needing a meal, or to stop being beaten, or being cured from a horrible disease? The answer is......they wouldn't. And...a conveniently placed "it's all part of gods plan" is BS in these cases. The thing is, I believe you know all this, but are denying it because your faith makes you. But, if you were being truly honest with yourself, you would wonder too.

          April 16, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          typical of one who thinks God is suppossed to be a genie in a lamp to say yes to everything and everyhones wants and needs in this TEMMPORARY world.....children going hungry...you say God should step in.....what makes you think god should do everything for us....yes..Let God take care of it while the rest of us sit here and twiddle ouir thumbs....nowhere does the Bibkle say God does all the stuff..we sshould be involved as well..how else are we going to show love if we dont feeed the poor? etc etc...Gods polan is higher than ours...sometimes we dont know what it is...and we shoud have faith to see that he will do what is right

          April 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Kermit...typical response from somebody that skirts the real question and tries to deflect answering. I never once said that I think any god is a genie in a bottle. That is your delusion, not mine. What I said, and what I still contend, is that if I was the creator and I had any power at all, I would certainly not let little kids starve and I would certainly make myself much better known to all. And, if I truly did exist, then I think I would have done better than 30% of my creations believing in me. That is a horrible failing grade, one not befitting a creator if he really existed. So....believe whatever you want to believe, but stop twisting my words around to fit your delusional belief.

          April 16, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      what is prayer..merely asking God for things? Prayer is speaking with God....it is part of a relationship...when you have a relationship with someone..you speak with them..you communicate with them...

      April 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        but if god intervenes in our earthly happening then we do not have free will. he is influencing our decisions or making them for us.

        April 16, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          NOt so..we still have free will..youre only looknig at it from one side...OUR time..God is not on oUR time or space

          April 16, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          and by the way..I still make my own decisions..God may help me in making them..but showing me the best ones..but I still have to choose which way to go

          April 16, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          a retreat into mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool. Not of our time or space. Good grief.

          No. If your god intervenes in any way then you do not make your own decisions and you do not have free will.

          So why do you pray? If god answers your prayer (LOLOL) that interferes with other people's free will.

          April 16, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          kermi: Which website did your print that degree from? For someone apparently so smart, you're quite crazy...no true psychologist would believe god or anything speaks to a person unless said person was having mental health issues.
          Btw: How's that Slander suit coming? (lol)

          April 17, 2014 at 5:33 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Man's will is not "free." But man is a free agent.

      "While it is true that God’s providence controls all the acts of human beings, still, that does not destroy man’s “free agency.” God does not control man’s acts by forcing them to do things against their will, but by so ordering the facts and circ.umstances of their lives, and the moral state of their hearts, that they voluntarily, of their own accord, without any constraint, always do exactly what God has foreordained that they are to do."

      Westminster Larger Catechism, God’s Providence – Question 14

      April 16, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        so Theo, if man does not have free will why have you written that man does have free will ... like ... oh ... a thousand times?

        April 16, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          We are creatures with a will of our own. We make things happen. Yet the causal power that we exert is only secondary. God’s sovereign providence stands over and above our actions. He works out His will through the actions of human wills, without violating the freedom of those human wills.

          Yes, we have a will, but it is by no means free.

          “I hold in my hand a book. I release it. What happens? It falls. In which direction? Downwards, always downwards. Why? Because answering the law of gravity, its own weight sinks it. Suppose I desire the book to occupy a position three feet higher? Then what? I must lift it. A power outside of the book must raise it. Such is the relationship to which fallen man sustains toward God. While divine power upholds him, he is preserved from plunging still deeper into sin. Let the power be withdrawn, and he falls. His own weight of sin drags him down. God does not push him down any more than I did the book. Let all divine restraint be removed, and every man is capable of becoming a Cain, a Pharaoh, a Judas. How then is the sinner to move heavenwards? By an act of his own will? Not so. A power outside of himself must grasp hold of him and lift him every inch of the way. The sinner is free, but free in one direction only, free to fall, free to sin. ‘For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness’ (Romans 6:20). The sinner is free to do as he pleases, except as he is restrained by God, but his pleasure is to sin.”

          “The Sovereignty of God” by A.W. Pink

          April 16, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          oh my.

          April 16, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • Alias

          @Theo
          So all I need ot do is invent an anti-gravity belt and I will be free of sin?
          I'll get right on that.

          April 16, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Wow! Theo....shouldn't you be out on a street corner right now?

          April 16, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Alias,
          No, but when you invent one, I want one! While you're at it, make me a hoverboard too!

          April 17, 2014 at 7:43 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Here's another way of looking at it... The ‘will’ is the faculty of choice – the immediate cause of all action. Choice necessarily implies the refusal of one thing, and the acceptance of another. The positive and the negative must both be present in the mind before there can be any choice, and in every act of the will there is preference – the desiring of one thing rather than another. Where there is no preference, but complete indifference, there is no volition. To will is to choose, and to choose is to decide between alternatives. But there is something which influences the choice, something which determines the decision, hence the will cannot be sovereign since it is the servant of that something. The will cannot be both sovereign and servant. It cannot be both cause and effect. The will is not causative because, as we have said, something causes it to choose, therefore that something must be the causative agent. Choice itself is affected by certain considerations and is determined by various influences brought to bear upon the individual himself. Hence, volition is the effect of these considerations and influences, and if their effect, it must be their servant, and if the will is their servant, then it is not sovereign, and if the will is not sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute freedom of it.

          April 17, 2014 at 7:52 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          That's a bad analogy because we're not inanimate objects like books.

          We're more like mountain climbers. Gravity will take us if we slip, sure, but our will keeps us going to the top.

          I've never heard of any proven cases where somebody just prayed themselves to the top of a mountain, and I can't see how that would be nearly as satisfying as making it to the top all by yourself.

          April 17, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          "That's a bad analogy because we're not inanimate objects like books."
          ------------–
          No, but even as an animate object, you are subject to forces that you cannot control.

          "We're more like mountain climbers. Gravity will take us if we slip, sure, but our will keeps us going to the top."
          ----------------
          That would be true if your will was sovereign. The Christian does not see the will as sovereign because we can see that the will is subject to other influences, and if it is subject, it cannot be free. God is sovereign, and everything that occurs, does so because He has ordained it to be so. And when we sin, it is not that God makes us sinful and forces us to do something that we do not want to do – no, when we sin, we do so because we want to, and because it is something that we want to do, then it is in accordance to our wills. If it is in accordance to our wills, then it is proof that our wills are corrupt. If our wills are corrupt, then we cannot "climb the mountain." We may take a few steps (we can do good things), but we can never make it to the top (we cannot save ourselves). Indeed, it takes an outside force (God) to do for us what we cannot do on our own. Can a man climb a mountain if all of his limbs are broken? No, he needs an airplane. And in the spiritual sense, your arms and legs are broken (your will is corrupt) and you can never get to the top of the mountain on your own.

          April 17, 2014 at 8:46 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          You seem to be comparing us to your concept of God, which is unrealistic, to say the least. Sure, you imagine he has the power to make any thought come true, but we have limits to what we can achieve with the bodies and resources we have to command. Like a lot of people, I'd like to have superpowers, move objects with my mind, do actual magic, and other fanciful things, but I'm an ordinary human being and I know my limitations. That still doesn't mean that I have the will to command my limited body and resources to achieve reasonable goals.

          I'm not really bummed out that I can't just wiggle my nose to clean up some spilled milk, or say some fancy words while waving a stick in my hand to teleport myself to DisneyLand. And I'm not at all disappointed that I will someday die and my life will just end, or that I can't just ask an invisible friend to get me out of a jam.

          The only things that appear to be limitless are human imagination and the gullibility of people to believe the things they imagine are true. So what if we can't make all of our dreams come true? It would be unrealistic to believe that we should have this ability, wouldn't it? A fantasy, only achievable by a fantasy creature.

          "Getting to the top" in your mind means never making a single mistake, right? Why is that a reasonable goal? Making mistakes is how we learn. They're the life experiences which give our accomplishments meaning. If you have never lost a game in your life, how do you truly know what it feels like to win? If we were born perfect, and never made any mistakes, what kind of existence would that be? Robotic, programmed, and unthinking, like the machine we create to be efficient?

          Even in your own doctrine, God didn't want us to be incapable of ever making a mistake. So, if he created us with the free will to choose our own paths, why punish us for being the imperfect beings that he created us to be? If you purposefully created a toy that could fly itself would you get upset with it if it veered of whatever course you thought it should take? It's God's own fault that he created us with the will to do what we want, and it's an unreasonable wish on his part that we should all reach perfection despite how he made us. It's therefore unreasonable of him to judge us by an impossible standard, and unreasonable for us to judge ourselves negatively because we cannot achieve perfection.

          April 17, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo
          And what would God know about perfection in behaviour? He lives alone. There are no other gods for him to get along with, correct? Your doctrine states that we cannot judge his actions towards us, so does God "choose" to be good, or is everything that he does automatically get labeled good because only he's the only one judging it?

          April 17, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Great questions. No, God does not create us perfect – we have a will of our own that we might love God willingly, for no true love is ever forced. By doing that, God has decreed that sin be a part of His creation. God did not create sin though, that began when Satan chose through pride to exault himself over God. Once thrown down from heaven, knowing that he could never directly attack God, Satan chose to attack God indirectly by damaging that which God loved, namely, man. Once tempted, man chose willingly to disobey God, and thereby submitted the whole world (through Adam) to sin through the curse of death, the punishment that sin brings.

          God’s decrees are not the necessitating cause of the sins of men however, but is instead the fore-determined and prescribed bounding and directing of men’s sinful acts.

          God does not take up a good man, instill an evil desire into his heart, and thereby force him to perform terrible deeds in order to execute His decrees. Instead, God decreed the act, and then selected the one who was to perform the act, but He did not “make him evil” in order that he should perform the deed.

          On the contrary, when we look at the life of Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, he was “a devil” at the time the Lord Jesus chose him as one of the twelve. (John 6:70) And in the manifestation and exercise of his own devilry, God simply directed Judas’ actions – actions that were agreeable to his own vile heart, and performed with the most wicked of intentions.

          By this way, man is still accountable to God for his sins.

          April 17, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          So, you're saying that, if the idea to do a bad thing pops into your mind, it's either Satan tempting you because you're a relatively good person, or God tempting you because you're a relatively bad person?

          How can you tell which it is, and why can't it just be your own selfish desires surfacing, or don't you believe that we have those of our own accord?

          April 17, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          So, you're saying that, if the idea to do a bad thing pops into your mind, it's either Satan tempting you because you're a relatively good person, or God tempting you because you're a relatively bad person?
          ------------
          No one is even remotely a good person. The fact that we even do bad things is proof of our corrupt nature. And because God cannot do that which is evil (and we read from scripture) that God tempts no one. (James 1:13) Temptations to do evil come both from without and from within. We all have urges and desires from within that we seek to satisfy in our own ways that indeed violate the word of God, but temptations also come from this world that is influenced by Satan. Just try to go through the checkout counter in any grocery store and spot just one magazine that doesn't show some person in "non-functional" clothing that is designed with a perverted and almost childish fascination with nudity.

          "How can you tell which it is, and why can't it just be your own selfish desires surfacing, or don't you believe that we have those of our own accord?"
          ---------------
          Sins come from temptations that originate from the world, our flesh, and the devil.

          April 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          I know a lot of people who I consider to be "good". A lot of them also happen to be Christians. They're not perfect, but they appear to cause a lot less harm than other people do. Being a person with the same urges that's all that I can expect of my fellow man. Perfection is a ridiculous standard to judge anyone by.

          I find it a pity that your opinion of people is so sour. I cannot see any good in it, so I suspect that some terrible influence has twisted you into not being able to appreciate the innocence of a child, or the better character of some people. I suspect your religious belief to be the cause but, since you believe in such a creature, have you ever considered that the devil might be influencing you? Who else but someone who supposedly hates humanity would ever teach people to focus mainly on the evil people do? Something has made you a bigot towards humanity, and it can't be anything good.

          You say that God tempts no one, but if the thought to do something tempting comes to mind you offer that it's either the devil tempting a relatively good person, or God himself simply using an individual he has given up as too evil to be redeemed, correct? Well, how does anyone know which they are? A relatively good person might give up all hope after being tempted, thinking that God has forsaken them and a really evil person might consider themselves rather godly if they manage to stem off some minor temptations, or they may take on the role of being "God's instrument" fully and commit even worse atrocities, feeling that they are simply doing the will of God. I see lots of room for abuse in this notion and no reason to see it helping anyone actually overcome their compulsions.

          God gets to call whatever he does "good", does he?

          An incorrupt humanity society would also be a decadent one, correct? Adam and Eve in a Garden where their every need was seen to by God. They didn't have to struggle one bit to survive. They might as well have been sunbathing on a tropical island paradise with fruit trees within easy reach, living easy and lazy, the decadent dream that vacation spas try to sell us. Heaven is like that too, right? Heaven is a place where you will never want for anything, a utopia, a place of nothing but happiness.

          Isn't that a "temptation" if ever there was one? Wouldn't some believers ignore anything that got in the way of their having this temptation? Some have left their spouses after they stopped sharing this belief, correct? Some have kicked their "sinning" children out the door. They say that they love God more than anyone else, and will do whatever he says in the hope that they will someday join him in this utopia. Perhaps, if you subst.ituted "gold" for heaven you'd see just how selfish this desire actually is.

          "clothing that is designed with a perverted and almost childish fascination with nudity."
          I suppose that you'd prefer to see women in burkas?

          April 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6
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.