home
RSS
June 3rd, 2014
01:02 PM ET

Inside Manhattan's most hipster-y megachurch

(CNN) - While some churches are struggling to attract younger members,  20 and 30-something-year-olds are waiting in long lines to get into Hillsong's services.

Pastor Carl Lentz is the main attraction. He spoke to CNN's Poppy Harlow about the church's success and where he stands on several major issues.

Watch Anderson Cooper 360° weeknights 8pm ET. For the latest from AC360° click here.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Celebrity • Christianity • Church • evangelicals • Leaders • Protestant • Sacred Spaces • Trends • TV-Anderson Cooper 360

soundoff (1,057 Responses)
  1. Doc Vestibule

    Muslims: Allahu akbar!
    Christians: Deus vult!
    Jews: Oy vey.

    June 6, 2014 at 11:17 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Fool me once Shame on you

      Fool me twice Shame on me

      Fool me fairly often Hey, it’s a free country, I can believe what I like

      Fool me repeatedly That’s just your interpretation

      Fool me every day We report, you decide

      Fool me all the time AND take my money on a weekly basis God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

      June 6, 2014 at 11:44 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Fool me once, shame on you.
        Fool me twice, shame on me.
        Fool me every Sunday morning, shaman you.

        June 6, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          That's punny...

          June 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
  2. Vic

    ♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰

    June 6, 2014 at 10:00 am |
    • Madtown

      "Who?"

      – signed,
      Tarzan, a human created by God living in the jungle

      June 6, 2014 at 10:45 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Jesus Christ died apparently and the dead do not rise. (fixed it for you)

      June 6, 2014 at 11:25 am |
    • ausphor

      Vic imagine if you will/can that you lost your faith/belief in your God or any God, how would that affect your life?

      June 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
  3. TruthPrevails1

    Well it appears the bigots are reading their bibles wrong. Their bible supports same sex marriage after all. :)
    "Under the old covenant, one could simply be born into the people of God. But as Jesus explained to Nicodemus, under the new covenant, “no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3:3). In the words of John Piper, God’s people are now “produced not by physical procreation but by spiritual regeneration.”

    This change in how the kingdom of God is built has had lasting consequences that pertain to our discussion of same-sex marriage.

    First, marriage and procreation are no longer seen as the necessary ways of growing God’s family.

    Second, lifelong celibacy is a valid option for Christians, even though it generally wasn’t for the ancient Israelites.

    Third, the definition of family has changed for Christians.

    Jesus was preaching to a crowd when his mother and brothers showed up, asking to speak with him. He responded by saying, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Jesus pointed to his disciples and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:46–50)."
    (http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sehttp://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflowx_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
    **As much as Salon is usually satirical, the article gives an interesting perspective

    Now Christians please pay close attention to this and stop the bigotry. Basically your own book is telling you that as long as you believe you'll get to heaven-that's the only requirement really-so, close your mind to all other possibilities and give up on seeking further knowledge...sounds like such an enlightening life-NOT!

    June 6, 2014 at 7:38 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Let me sum up the responses you'll likely get:

      Dear hell-bound heathen,

      You obviously don't know what the Bible says.
      You're taking it out of context.
      It is a translation error.
      It is a metaphor.
      God works in mysterious ways, but I'm 100% He hates the same people that I do.
      Gay people make me feel icky, therefore they remain abominations in the eyes of God, even if the other stuff He used to consider an abomination no longer is.
      You and your liberal, atheist, communist, nihilist, anarchist, satanist buddies have all been brainwashed into accepting sin as natural. Stop being pawns of the Ho/mose/xual agenda and pick up a Bible.
      Just make sure to interpret it in the same way as I do and your soul will be saved.

      Sincerely,

      Hetero McWaspy
      V.P. of Christians Against Equality

      P.S. – 1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26, 1 Timothy 1:10

      June 6, 2014 at 8:29 am |
      • awanderingscot

        D0C
        slandering the Lord again?

        June 6, 2014 at 8:47 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          No.
          I'm just making fun of a certain type of His followers.

          June 6, 2014 at 8:51 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Leviticus 27 ? where the Lord set standards for vows made to him? you accused him of devaluing His children. you should be ashamed of yourself.

          June 6, 2014 at 8:57 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Huh? How does one slander that which they do not believe in?
          We understand that you're not the most intellectual person but use a little common sense!

          June 6, 2014 at 8:57 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "truth"
          i believe D0C can answer for himself. He made the accusation.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I pointed out that when it comes to counting people and/or assigning them a dollar value, God assigns NO value to infants under the age of 1 month.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:03 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          awanderingtot: I agree, however I am entitled to my opinion regardless of what you may think...this is a public blog-you know that right? If you wish to have a private conversation with Doc, perhaps request his email-I'd be surprised if you qualify as being human to have that, but hey Doc can speak for himself.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          the valuation is not a valuation of worth as a human being. the valuation is based on the amount of work (LABOR) that can be done by the person vowed assisting the priests in their duties. That's why a male child under the age of 5 was 5 shekels, a young man up to the age of 20 was 20 shekels, a man between 20 and 60yrs old it was 50 shekels. again, the amount of money was based on the LABOR that the person could perform and not their worth as a person. and it was totally voluntary as a vow in appreciation of the blessings the Lord bestowed. quit slandering the Lord when you have no idea what you are saying.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:13 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "truth"
          that's fine, no one's stopping you. but try to follow the bouncing ball at least, and let's try to minimize the ad hominem attacks.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:16 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If it is all based on how much labour they can do, why is there a value given to 1 month olds?
          And when we're talking about toddlers labouring, why are females assigned a lesser value than males? It's not like there's a qualitative difference between the work of a girl or boy at between the ages of 1 month and 5 years.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          scot: You're a loon with serious need of help! It is pathetic that you use your crazed belief system to make excuses for the acceptance of the crap you just posted.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          And you haven't yet answered my question –
          In your opinion, was it ethical for the Chilean government to force a pre-teen ra/pe victim to give birth?

          June 6, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • midwest rail

          ' lets try to minimize the ad hominem attacks"

          awanderingscot
          gulliblenomore
          you are a moron for believing technology is the same thing as science.

          gotta love consistency.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Midwest....I never listen to the ramblings of an idiot, so nothing this moron has to say to me leaves any impression at al.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:45 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          no i don't think it was ethical for the Chilean government to do that; however, the Chilean government is not God.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "rail"
          thanks for taking my comment out of context you moron.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • midwest rail

          You're quite welcome. What context makes it ok to condemn ad hominems in one breath, and resort to them in the next ?

          June 6, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "rail"
          do you think science and technology are the same too?

          June 6, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          it's based upon redemption as well. a family into which a child is just born in all likelihood has incurred extra expenses just starting out. the Lord in His wisdom blesses the family and does not want them to consider giving anything back yet.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • Madtown

          awanderingscot
          Leviticus 27 ? where the Lord set standards for vows made to him?
          ----
          God didn't author Leviticus.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          " the Lord in His wisdom blesses the family and does not want them to consider giving anything back yet."

          That's nice that God gives 1 month of parental leave to His chosen people.
          Do you have unambiguous scriptural references to back this up, or is it conjecture based on your personal interpretation?

          June 6, 2014 at 10:13 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          Doesn't Leviticus 12:6 say that a woman is supposed to sacrifice a lamb and a pigeon to God immediately after giving birth?

          June 6, 2014 at 10:20 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Applied science is a discipline of science that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, such as technology or inventions.

          Moron is a term once used in psychology to denote mild intellectual disability of which aws is a perfect example.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:21 am |
        • midwest rail

          " do you think science and technology are the same too?"
          The answer is irrelevant, since you never addressed what was said, you simply attacked – the very definition of an ad hominem. Next.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • igaftr

          there is scot d hartwell, telling someone at 9:16 for ad hominem attack, then says "thanks for taking my comment out of context you moron." at 9:35.

          Here are some more of this juvenile's comments.
          "you're just another unregenerate hater."
          "the DoG returns to his own vomit."
          "you should practice what you preach you Godless hypocrite."
          "you'll need to consult the nose-haired government-grant sycophants "
          "Colin can't seem to get his nose-hair buddies on the line "
          "unregenerate unbelievers"
          "one of your nose-haired buddies "
          " here's something your pea-sized brain might be able to wrap around"
          " hairy-eared government sycophants can't do it"
          "why are you a stooge for nose-haired government sycophants?"
          "you doh-doh's only think you have the facts, but others besides your nose-haired sycophant stooges "
          "you're like a wind-up doll that your nose-haired sycophants on government grants "
          "snifflepagan," Dorrus"
          " you have no more reasoning than a weasel and are only concerned with where your next meal will come from"
          "these cretins will believe any other fool who grows nose and ear hair calling himself a "scientist" "
          " Fools can't see the wind either yet they believe it exists. duh"
          "the logic of that bb bouncing around in your skull just won't cut it Alien"
          "your unregenerate cellmates have claimed,"
          "you lie all the time because your father the devil "
          "! dashing all the little retarded atheists dreams like that "
          "you clown"
          " that idiot."
          "is all you are little boy, you got poopy in your diaper? is that why your little baby face is all red?"
          " they are unregenerate, spiritually dead, unclean. touching them will not make them holy, however,
          if they are able to touch us we could become unclean"

          You have a lot of nerve, being one of the biggest name-callers on this site, telling others not to name call.

          Grow up Scot.

          June 8, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        :)

        I was thinking a member of the blogs toon-crew (Theo; topher; awanderingscot; kermi; new-man; MadeFromDirt...to name a few) would start screaming about how the author of the article had interpreted the bible incorrectly.

        June 6, 2014 at 8:53 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "truth"
      wow, that's a huge leap there. you claim to see and therefore you are blind. only one such as yourself, unregenerate, would make such an assertion. you contest with God and not with "bigots" here on earth since His word makes no provision at all for same-six sixual relation much less marriage. one could not expect the Godless to know anything about God's ways.
      "Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." – Matthew 19:4-6

      June 6, 2014 at 9:30 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Thanks for this response.
        It makes my joke answer seem that much more on target.

        June 6, 2014 at 9:42 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        " you contest with God "

        I understand that grasping anything is difficult for you but I DO NOT contest with your god...your god doesn't exist in my world, any more than Zeus or Odin exists in your very tiny world. The rest of it proves Doc's point.

        June 6, 2014 at 11:14 am |
    • Dalahäst

      20% of atheists oppose same s.ex marriage.

      June 6, 2014 at 9:59 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        64% of Evangelical millenials and 62% of American Catholics support same-s.ex marriage.
        What's your point?

        June 6, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I know! My point is to respond to her point. I found that statistic out recently and I thought she should know it.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:38 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Dala: Keep up! I'm pointing to the belief aspect of this...if an Atheist opposes same gender marriage they are not doing it due to belief. Where exactly did you pull that stat from?

        June 6, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Pew Research.

          A Christian can oppose same gender marriage for the same reasons an atheist can. Sometimes the belief aspect is not the cause.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:14 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          I understand that but too many don't...look above at awanderingscot's post.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:16 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Atheists are just as capable of being wrong on issues as anyone else.

        The fact that someone is atheist only means I agree with them on one question.

        June 6, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Same here.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          The question I would like to ask those 20% is on what basis are they against gay marriage. The very few times I have been able to ask an atheist that their answer has been nonsensical.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:55 am |
  4. Vic

    On a side note, it's the 70th Anniversary of D-Day, the Invasion of Normandy by the Allied Forces on 06-06-1944.

    June 6, 2014 at 7:03 am |
    • gulliblenomore

      It's too bad so many people had to die when your god could have just waved his mighty hand and dropped a piano on Hitler.

      June 6, 2014 at 7:25 am |
      • Vic

        What happened to the responsibility of man?

        If God were to intervene in everything, there is no point of this whole life realm.

        June 6, 2014 at 7:33 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Vic....he intervenes in nothing, which makes him worthless.

          June 6, 2014 at 7:52 am |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          Imagine if you will/can that you stopped believing in your God or any God. How would that affect your life?

          June 6, 2014 at 8:01 am |
        • kudlak

          Vic
          Hitler sure was pigheaded about not wanting to let the Jews escape. Maybe the LORD hardened his heart like he did Pharaoh's during the Exodus?

          June 6, 2014 at 8:12 am |
      • saggyroy

        But god didn't probably couldn't because Hitler had his "Gott Mit Uns" belt buckle on.

        June 6, 2014 at 8:21 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      All gave some and some gave all...thankful for my freedom as a result of those men.

      June 6, 2014 at 7:39 am |
      • bostontola

        Hear, hear!

        June 6, 2014 at 9:22 am |
  5. thefinisher1

    Hello?

    June 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Goodbye!

      June 5, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Hello?
      Is there anybody in there?
      Just nod if you can hear me.
      Is there anyone at home?
      Come on, now,
      I hear you're feeling down.
      Well I can ease your pain
      Get you on your feet again.
      Relax.
      I'll need some information first.
      Just the basic facts.
      Can you show me where it hurts?

      June 5, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
      • Akira

        There is no pain, you are receding
        A distant ship smoke on the horizon
        You are only coming through in waves
        Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying
        When I was a child I had a fever
        My hands felt just like two balloons
        Now I've got that feeling once again
        I can't explain, you would not understand
        This is not how I am
        I have become comfortably numb

        June 5, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I've got wild staring eyes.
          And I've got a strong urge to fly.
          But I got nowhere to fly to.
          Ooooh, Babe when I pick up the phone

          "Surprise, surprise, surprise..." (from Gomer Pyle show)

          There's still nobody home.

          I've got a pair of Gohills boots
          and I got fading roots.

          (one of my favorite albums Akira)

          June 6, 2014 at 12:15 am |
        • Akira

          All in all, we're just
          Another brick in the wall.

          (Mine too, BATC)

          June 6, 2014 at 12:25 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I was in 6th grade in Catholic school when it came out. Real old school habit wearing Nun for a teacher....

          Good times.

          You ever seen the movie "Heaven Help Us"?

          June 6, 2014 at 12:40 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Oh and did you see Roger Waters do The Wall 2 years ago?

          Great show...

          June 6, 2014 at 12:43 am |
        • Akira

          No, I didn't see that; I saw Pink Floyd during their "Animals" tour. Giant flying pig, for obvious reasons.
          Back in the 70's. (I was a wee lass, *snerk*)

          June 6, 2014 at 11:00 am |
  6. bostontola

    Gene study shows how sheep first separated from goats
    Date: June 5, 2014
    Source: University of Edinburgh
    Summary:
    Scientists have cracked the genetic code of sheep to reveal how they became a distinct species from goats around four million years ago.

    Obviously, these scientists neglected to consult the bible.

    June 5, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
    • kudlak

      Separate the sheep from the goats?
      Metaphorically, I think that's something that Jesus is supposed to do when he gets back, ... you know, any day now!

      Funny thing is, I kinda like the idea of being a "goat" more than being a "sheep". Goats go their own way, where sheep live up to their reputation for being too easily led.

      June 5, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
  7. Doris

    Gay Marriage News

    –beginning June 27, same-se.x couples where one partner holds a British citizenship will be able to marry in the Australian cities of Sydney and Perth, with Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra to follow soon after.

    –beginning June 3, British couples will be able to marry at the consulates in the following countries: Russia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, China and Colombia.

    –The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to halt same-se.x weddings in Oregon while a federal appeals court considers whether a group opposed to gay marriage can intervene in the case.

    The order follows an emergency appeal by the National Organization for Marriage, which seeks to overturn U.S. District Judge Michael McShane's May 19 ruling that declared Oregon's same-se.x marriage ban unconst.itutional. The group had unsuccessfully tried to intervene in the lower court proceeding after Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum declined to defend the same-se.x ban.

    The group filed its request with Justice Anthony Kennedy and he referred it to the full court. The justices denied it without comment.

    June 5, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
    • tallulah131

      It's been a good couple of weeks in Oregon.

      June 5, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
  8. colin31714

    Yes, it is dead. The problem is, it is always the same old posters on each side, making discussions predictable to the point of not being worth having.

    June 5, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      You often post the same packaged answers for replies. How is that not being predictable?

      June 5, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
      • colin31714

        I don't know – ask your therapist, you unstable nutjob.

        June 6, 2014 at 9:42 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Maybe you are hypocritical. Maybe if you applied the standards you judge others by you might find you are an unstable nutjob.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:45 am |
        • colin31714

          Yeah, if I ever post the dribbling garbage you do about how some dead Jew from 2,000 years ago still loves you, helps steer your life and will cause you to live happily in heaven ever after you die, I would agree with you. Until then, I will enjoy the real World and let you believe in your Greco-Roman Jewish superst.itions.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm sorry to disappoint you. I don't believe that. Did you learn this from the same website or book that taught you I believe in a "sky fairy"? You can't believe everything you read in a book, you know. Have fun in your "real World" with your philosophical belief system that you treat like a religion. How your "sky fairy" treats you well today.

          June 6, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Hope your "sky fairy" treats you well today!

          June 6, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
  9. noahsdadtopher

    This place is dead today.

    June 5, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
    • Akira

      Yes, it is; so: hi, Topher.
      How's Noah doing?

      June 5, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        He's doing well. And he's beyond cute!

        How are you doing?

        June 5, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • Akira

          Oh, I am glad he's doing good! And I'll bet he is; babies are just so darned cute...how is your puppy reacting to the little guy?
          I'm doing well, thanks for asking; you sound like you're doing pretty fine yourself.

          June 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          I'm doing better than I deserve. (smiley)

          The puppy want to lick him and "mother" him. And we have to put her in her crate when it's tummy time on the floor. But I'm thinking they are going to be best friends when he gets old enough to be mobile.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
    • hotairace

      It's just a symptom of religion dying. Yahoo!!

      June 5, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      it's dead today but give it 3 days and it'll be resurrected.

      June 5, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Three days or until the next Catholic story pops up. Whichever comes first.

        June 5, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
    • new-man

      I didn't read through the comments so I'm not sure if you've already given your opinion on Carl's method. In any event I'd like to get your opinion on Pastors Carl Lentz & Judah Smith [specifically is it style with substance etc.].

      June 5, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        I honestly don't know anything about them. I've heard of them, but that's about it.

        June 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
        • new-man

          understand.
          I've not seen a lot of Carl's sermons, but from what I've seen, his approach seems to be one of loving people where they are at – which in reality is what we're called to do. LOVE. (Todd White's is a bit similar, but with more demonstration).

          June 5, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • kudlak

          "Love" without actual acceptance often comes across as condescension, however.

          June 5, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
  10. Vic

    I believe a more accurate categorization for the Hillsong Church would be Evangelical Pentecostal.

    June 5, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      Strange Fire.

      June 5, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • Reality

      No, the only description is just another version of the Infamous Christian Con !!!!!.

      June 5, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I'm a Christian. What am I being conned out of? And who is doing the conning?

        If you are saying that just some Christians con, not all, never mind with my questions.

        June 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala....
          Shouldn't you ask Topher if you qualify to be a Christian in the first instance? Topher is very selective as who can call themselves Christian, dismissing hundreds of millions because they do not meet Topher's standards. And of course you can be a Christian without the religious trappings, too bad all Christian people would not follow the lead of the Jesuits.

          June 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Is that kind of like the other day when some atheists on here said I was never a real atheist and referred to another atheist as a wannabe pogue atheist?

          June 5, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          I, also, was supposedly never a "real atheist."

          June 5, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • midwest rail

          That's because you insist that when you were an "atheist", you knew God existed. The two do not mesh.

          June 5, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • bostontola

          A real atheist? Just don't believe in God, no other qualifications.

          People may have been questioning the veracity of your claims to have been an atheist, that is different. To me, it's all irrelevant.

          June 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The wannabe pogue atheist remark was made to someone who definitely did not believe in God. Some atheists just cherry pick their own definitions to what atheism is to suit themselves.

          June 5, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          No such thing as a real atheist or really real Christian in my opinion, anyone can change. Topher is here, ask him if he approves of you calling yourself a Christian.

          June 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          ausphor

          I'm concerned with what God thinks of me. Not Topher. I'm sure he feels the same about me. We've discussed things before and he has never told me I wasn't a real Christian. Why is that so important to you?

          June 5, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          Were you an atheist or an agnostic?

          June 5, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've been both.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've been a deist, too.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala..
          It really isn't important to me at all. It is just that the likes of Topher can write off the majority of Christian believers as not worthy of the name is so judgemental. As a deist I am open to finding out what we "don't know" and certainly do not believe in a personal god and the whole after life nonsense. BTW, why do you do that so often, question people as to their motives, it is quite irritating, why do you care?

          June 5, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Aushpor

          How do you know there is no personal God and no life after death? Shouldn't that be one of the the things you add to your "don't know" list?

          People ask me what my motives are often. I feel it is fair to ask others. Motives are important.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          I guess what I would like to point out that while I admire your particular faith, I can not say the same thing about what Topher posts that reveal about his fundie beliefs. Good grief he believes in the great flood and the tower of Babel. There is such a wide diversity among the Christian faiths that cannot accept each others interpretation of the same myth. So as to motives, I can usually determine that through context; do you ask Salero21 or thefinisher1 what their motives for posting are? They seem to be the fringe element of some sort of nutter group.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have asked them about their motives. But they rarely post to me, like you did. So it was a fair question on my part. You were the one asking me a question, not them.

          I hear you on the diversity: there is such a wide diversity among the deist faiths, too. I think we have to discern the truth for ourselves and seek God for that answer.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Sorry did not answer your question, I have a strong belief/faith that there is no evidence that there is a life after death or a personal god, just as your lot believe there is, AMEN.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Oh, I misunderstood you when you said you were open to finding out what we "don't know".

          June 5, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          Do you distinguish between not knowing and not believing?

          All ausphor said was that s/he didn't believe in an afterlife, not that s/he knows there is none.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Atheist = there was no God.

          Agnostic = I couldn't tell if there was or wasn't a God. I didn't know.

          That is not all he said. Ausphor said as a deist he was open to finding out what we "don't know", but certainly not open to believe in a personal god and the whole after life "nonsense".

          June 5, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
        • bostontola

          "open to finding out what we "don't know" and certainly do not believe in a personal god and the whole after life nonsense."

          I don't see where ausphor says s/he knows there is no afterlife as you asked. When you don't believe something as unlikely as an afterlife, it does seem like nonsense. That's not the same as not being open to it if any objective evidence surfaced.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Ok, I misunderstood him. He often promotes deism to me, and says things like "As a deist I'm open to finding out what we don't know..."

          As if Christians, atheists and agnostics also are not open to finding out what we don't know.

          I know as a Christian I am open to finding out what we don't know, and certainly do not believe in a non-personal god and the idea "we can't know God" nonsense.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • bostontola

          And I would disagree with someone who said 'we can't know Harry Potter'.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Do you understand his train of thought?

          He approached me asking questions about other people. I asked him why? And then he said "as a deist, I am open to finding out what we don't know..."

          What does that have to do with anything?

          That is what I was trying to ask. I'm not sure why you decided to chime in on it.

          Oh well.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I would disagree with someone who said ‘we can’t know something without objective evidence’.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • bostontola

          I didn't realize this was a private conversation.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is not. But you seem to be taken some elements of the conversation out of context.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
        • bostontola

          Perhaps. I rang up on your response where you said – "How do you know there is no personal God and no life after death?", after ausphor said s/he didn't believe in a personal God or an afterlife.

          I get that a lot from people, and I was inquiring whether you see any significant difference between knowing and believing.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There is a big difference between knowing and believing. Yes.

          I know God is real. I believe Christianity is the best way to live in response to that fact for me.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • bostontola

          Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. I think your bar for 'knowing' something is lower than mine. That's fair enough.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I let God set the bar. Not guys I hardly know on the internet. I know that works better for me. I'm glad you've found something that works for you.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • bostontola

          I really don't understand your comment. My bar for knowing something is having a large set of objective evidence that has been independently verified by other people and preferably includes measurement by inanimate machines. I think that is a harder standard to meet than you standard to know God which has been attained by your personal experiences only.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I fully embrace and use objective evidence. It is especially great when conducting scientific experiences. To know something like whether a person loves you or what the purpose and meaning of life is: such things aren't the best way to discern that truth. I'm a human being, I'm not limited by objective evidence or measurements by other people and inanimate machines.

          There is more to life than that. I know that.

          June 5, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          experiences = experiments

          June 5, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • bostontola

          bostontola

          I really don't understand your comment. My bar for knowing something is having a large set of objective evidence that has been independently verified by other people and preferably includes measurement by inanimate machines. I think that is a harder standard to meet than you standard to know God which has been attained by your personal experiences only.
          June 5, 2014 at 6:42 pm |

          June 5, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • bostontola

          oops

          June 5, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
        • bostontola

          "I'm not limited by objective evidence or measurements by other people and inanimate machines." So you agree that your bar for 'knowing' is lower, I do require that. That is not a value judgment at all, just recognition that my bar for 'knowing' is harder to meet.

          I've thought many times I knew someone loved me and found out I was wrong. You are a rare and fortunate person to have perfect 'love radar'.

          June 5, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          If you know your bar is set higher for knowing something than me: good for you.

          If you just believe your bar is set higher for knowing something than m: good for you.

          Either way, whatever you keep preaching to me, which is not anything new or revolutionary, doesn't personally work for me in my life.

          Great stuff for studying matter and science. But there is more to life than that. I'm not the only one who knows that.

          June 5, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • bostontola

          I again don't understand your comment. My observation of the bar height isn't something to work for me or you. It is a simple observation.

          Most people, myself included, recognize there is much more to life than science. What does that have to do with this conversation? This conversation is about what a person 'knows' vs what they believe. I don't use the word 'know' for things like love. That doesn't mean I don't feel it and experience it. Things that are internal experience for me I feel or believe. You are comfortable going beyond that to 'know'.

          Have you ever 'known' something that turned out to be wrong?

          June 5, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          So you don't know what it is like to have someone love you?

          You don't know what it is like to love someone?

          June 5, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • bostontola

          I absolutely know what it is like, it is a great feeling. I know what a lot of things are like in my mind. I know what it is like to taste chocolate too. Do I know if my experience of chocolate, or the color red is that same as anyone else? No.

          Do you really not distinguish between 'knowing' something, and knowing what something is like.

          Have you ever 'known' anything that turned out to be wrong?

          It was fun discussing this with you Dalahast. I have to run and be with someone I love.

          June 5, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've thought I've known something, but turned out to be wrong.

          I used to believe strongly people couldn't really know God.

          Now I know we can know God. Even you can. And that knowledge isn't set by a bar you try to place like you do with me.

          Thanks for talking. I used to believe what you are preaching. But I've changed.

          June 5, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          An atheist, an agnostic, a deist, and now a Christian? Sounds like you change you mind about God a lot. Maybe you're not actually settled yet?

          You can actually be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. Theism/ atheism just addresses whether or not you actually believe in a god. Yes = theist, no = atheist. There is no agnostic option of "unsure" to this question. Agnosticism has to deal with whether or not you claim to know that there's a god.

          While many Christians claim to know that God actually exists (gnostic theists) many others only say that they have faith that God is real (agnostic theists).

          We also have gnostic atheists who claim to know that no gods exist anywhere, which is ridiculous. You can't possibly know that, right? Personally, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know that no gods exist, but I certainly don't believe any of the claims that certain gods do exist.

          See how that works?

          June 5, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I know how it works.

          A common understanding, one backed by the dictionary, is that atheists believe there is no God. Agnostic means one doesn't know. That is the understanding of the terms I was referring to that I used for myself.

          I'm agnostic about many things. But I know God exists.

          June 5, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          Delayed response. In my opinion you do not know that there is a God, let alone the Christian God, you have faith/belief that there is but that is not "knowing". I do not have your faith/belief in any of the man made Gods, therefore I "don't know" if they exist outside of the minds of men and I severely doubt that they do. I will continue to observe nature and the universe as a deist in order to find the answers to our existence. Belief/faith does not equal KNOWING by common definition; faith/belief=conviction without proof, knowledge=facts, information, (proof, evidence).

          June 6, 2014 at 6:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I know God.

          1 Corinthians 2:10-13: “It was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets. No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us. When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths”

          You believe I'm wrong.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:33 am |
        • ausphor

          Dala...
          You also seem to be hung up on my use of the word, nonsense, in regard to some of your Christian beliefs. If it makes you feel better I also think it is nonsense that you could be reincarnated as a sacred cow or be transported to the planet Kolob. I have a pretty fair idea what const!tutes nonsense, the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Holy Bible, for example.

          June 6, 2014 at 6:53 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No, I just misunderstood what you were preaching.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • bostontola

          ausphor,
          I find many people who conflate knowing and believing. Most are able to see the conflation and don't rigidly defend it.

          I see you are a Deist. I find Deism and atheism to be almost the same. In a practical, day to day sense, I find no difference, do you?

          The only reason I am an atheist rather than a Deist is that when I reduce the equation to:
          Possibility 1. Natural universe.
          Possibility 2. Natural universe + God.
          Possibility 1 is simpler, and requires less universal information to describe it. As long as there is 1 credible natural explanation that doesn't defy the objective evidence, logic and reason, I stay with possibility 1. But since there is such a paucity of objective evidence that could distinguish, either is possible.

          I think we can agree that the least likely possibilities are the man made Gods/religions. Their sacred texts reveal their human origins, rife with inconsistency, error, and obsolete morality.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          The only reason I'm not an atheist or a deist is because I know God exists. He has revealed evidence that I can not deny. I'm not sure why you guys keep protesting this, but you offer no objective evidence yourselves. It just seems like you don't like the feeling of God. It doesn't give you comfort like your beliefs do. That is why I put my faith in God, not man made philosophies that you 2 keep preaching at me.

          June 6, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....because you have provided no evidence that your god exists....

          June 6, 2014 at 10:06 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I have provided evidence.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:32 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....conjecture is not evidence.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          There is evidence. You just don't like it or won't accept it. You are not the judge of what is and isn't. You can just decide what personally works for you. You are on a blog dedicated to faith, belief and religion. It seems you must be willing to be open to the spiritual aspects of humanity and reality.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:50 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....I am open. However, I am unable to draw the line from a personal experience to reality without some form of proof. A 4 year old boy awakes from a routine surgery and tells everybody he saw Jesus on a rainbow colored pony and based on that, a movie proclaiming heaven is real is produced. I know a person that swears he was transported aboard an alien spacecraft. Of course, he has no evidence to that, but still insists it is true. It may be true in his mind, but that does not translate to either truth or reality.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Yea, I wouldn't just believe because of that boy either. Not without testing and questioning a whole lot. Which I have done.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          And your testing and questioning has convinced you? Exactly what testing were you able to perform that proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that heaven was indeed real?

          June 6, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No. I never said that.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....that's true, you never said that was what convinced you, but you certainly alluded to that.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • Dalahäst

          It is definitely more complicated than you tried to describe it as.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....no, it is not. It is simple, really. I believe you are purposely over-complicating it in order to avoid directly answering anybody.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is just a few anti-theists and atheists that have problems with me. Most of these same people are asking loaded questions. I make every effort to answer people. I've got 6 people talking to me at once. Sometimes there are 12. And they are all telling me different theories, opinions and understandings about myself. So it is complicated. I just don't agree with you. It is ok.

          I'm not the one trying to force my beliefs on you.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • ausphor

          bostontola
          Have to run but will get back to you on a new thread with a modern day definition of Deism.
          Dala...
          Perhaps we are preaching at you but then again, why do you post on this blog? Probably the same reason, to refute the other posters preaching!!

          June 6, 2014 at 10:01 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I post on here to talk about what I have faith (complete trust and confidence) in. I can only imagine that is what you do, too. This is a faith, belief and religion blog. We talk about our faith, belief, religion. Whether that is theism, atheism, deism, scientism, materialism, spiritualism, idolatry or agnosticism.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:05 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Under the "common" understanding, agnostics don't actually believe there is a God, making them technically atheists, which is inaccurate, correct?

          There are many other actual Christians who will admit that they don't know for sure whether the God they believe in is actually there. They recognize that they could be deluded or simply mistaken. I find these agnostic theists to be far more reasonable than those who refuse to entertain the thought that they might possibly be wrong.

          With what we know about the human mind these days I really can't see how anybody can reasonably claim to be anything but agnostic about the actual existence of God, or any other god for that matter. being convinced enough to become either a theist or an atheist is another matter entirely.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Concerning 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, I believe that you could be wrong, but apparently you do not.

          Usually, when someone makes such a positive claim the onus is upon them to furnish the evidence to back it up, correct? If you can't do that, we are completely free to just reject your claim as unfounded, aren't we?

          June 6, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You are free to do that. Just don't tell me silly things like "I'm glad that belief comforts you", because I will reply back that I know God exists. It is not just a belief.

          I don't know who "we" is. I'm trying to talk to people one on one. There is no "we" in atheism or agnosticism – you all believe different things. I can't address all that in a post or conversation with someone.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:40 am |
        • bostontola

          ausphor,
          Have a great day. I look forward to understanding Deism better.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:25 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Have you ever researched clinical delusion? There are plenty of people out there who know that they're communicating with aliens, demons, ghosts, their past selves and a bunch of other things that they can't demonstrate to others.

          Who knows, maybe they actually are communicating with these things, but we all generally regard this as a mental problem, don't we?

          You do know that this occurs, and that the deluded person usually begins with being unaware that they are deluded, right?

          June 6, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Belief in God is not indicative of clinical delusion. I haven't researched it, but I have spoken with experts in the field. I'll stick to the experts on this one.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dala....I'm curious. The experts are sold on the principles of evolution. Do you agree with the experts there?

          June 6, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • Dalahäst

          When you say "evolution" do you mean the Theory of Evolution as the origin of species, or just that a species can evolve and change?

          June 6, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Either one. The experts agree on both aspects

          June 6, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • Dalahäst

          The experts don't all agree with the Theory of Evolution as the origin of species. Most don't just say "evolution did it". That want to know how and why.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Dala....I was very careful not to say every expert. I am sure that I can find an expert somewhere that would agree that it was possible for my ceiling fan to fly off the ceiling, go to my refrigerator, and grab a beer. I am alluding to most experts. Which is why evolutionary theory (both kinds) is taught in every single major University in the United States. It is widely accepted as fact to most scientists. There are, of course, those that won't agree due to their belief system or some other reason, but I think I will go with the experts on this one, pretty much the same as you did.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:22 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I go with the experts, many of which are Christians and members of other religion, in regards to science.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:27 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala.....then since the majority of experts agree in evolution, I am guessing you agree with them, as your statement applies. By the way....there is no micro or macro evolution as you have alluded to. That is a terminology made up by the religious sect in order to confuse the masses. Most scientists agree with that.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:41 am |
        • Dalahäst

          gulliblenomore ... sorry, but I will talk to a scientist if I want to know about science. You can tell me about your personal beliefs, theories and philosophies. That is what you are an expert on.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....wow....so, you are refusing to answer the question whether you believe in evolution or not? Ok, you don't have to answer, but I have no idea why you have a problem typing the words "yes, I believe in evolution" or "No, I do not believe in evolution".

          However, in the future, would you please just tell me at the start that you don't want to answer a question so I don't waste my time trying to draw it out of you? Thanks.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I believe in evolution. Just like most people do. It appears life evolves. I don't think evolution explains the origin of life, though. Or the purpose and meaning of life. I think there is an intelligence behind evolution and all of science: God. This intelligence not only created and knows the whole universe – it also created and knows you.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          What a church I partner with says:

          "We are a church that is energized and guided by lively engagement in faith and life, and committed to encouraging conversation from a faith perspective about science and technology issues in our society and world. The ELCA teaches that science and technology are expressions of the human responsibility to learn and predict, imagine and invent for the sake of caring for creation together. The God-given gifts of science and technology should be used only as a means to respect and promote communities, life and human dignity.

          While the implications of science and technology sometimes pose new complexities and ambiguities, science and technology by definition “do not consti.tute understandings (or imply judgments) about God. There is no inherent conflict between scientific findings and the understanding of God as creator, redeemer and sanctifier.” -"

          I mostly agree with and appreciate that statement.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala.....I think I am making this too hard. Let me simplify it for you. Pick one of the answers below to the question "do you believe in evolution"

          YES
          NO

          June 6, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          evolution – A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

          Yes. I believe that process exists. My public speaking skills have evolved over the past few years, for example.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          evolution – The process of developing.

          Yes. I believe things develop. Computers have evolved thanks to human engineering and consumer demands.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          evolution – Gradual development.

          Yes. I believe some things gradually develop.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          You say that there have been things you 'knew' that turned out to be wrong. I'd guess that's true of all people. That is why I raised my bar on 'knowing' something versus believing something. I don't know there was a Big Bang. There is an extraordinary amount of evidence for it and I deeply believe it is true, but I don't know it. If something I 'know turns out to be wrong, then I know my threshold for 'knowing' is too low and I raise it. I'm not afraid to admit I don't know something. I don't know there is no God either. I believe it.

          I'm not saying that you don't 'know' there is a God. I'm sure that is what you experience. That doesn't make it true though.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. And your theory on your high standard of "knowing" something versus believing something doesn't mean you actually have a high standard of "knowing" something. I'm sure that is what you experience. That doesn't make it true though.

          Like you would say: I'm glad that belief gives you comfort.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          Now you have gone to semantics. If you don't like the term higher standard, how about more stringent standard? The point is, my criteria for 'knowing' something results in fewer things meeting that criteria than your criteria. Whatever you want to call that is ok with me. I make that criteria tough to meet because I feel that if I think I 'know' something, it should be incontrovertible. If it is found to be wrong, then my criteria was too weak. I'm comfortable not knowing things and believing them. You apparently are not.

          June 6, 2014 at 10:58 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I’m comfortable not knowing things and believing them. I really am.

          It is just in regards to knowing God we seem to disagree. That's fine. I would have been arguing right along with you 5 years ago.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Dala, You accept the authority of experts when you feel it suits your cause – in support of your belief. You ignore the fact that there is no objective evidence for a god – only stories embedded into Western society which are the imaginings of Middle Eastern Bronze Age goatherders. You have said that the bible does not inform your faith – only the word of Jesus; yet where does the "word of Jesus" originate? From whoever wrote and edited the bible. No evidence that Jesus said any of it. Many Christians deride Mormons because of the obvious cock and bull story – Christianity, Islam, and others have no more reliable sources, they are just more cloudy and have become established religions and so somehow accepted as credible.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Santa

          You preach stone age philosophy and want me to believe your imaginings are better because you've read "The God Delusion" and other atheist philosophies that make you feel good.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          I wonder if we are disagreeing over multiple meanings of the word to know.

          If you mean to say you 'know' God, the way we say 'I know Joe, he always wants to watch baseball', then we have no disagreement. I believe you can know God in that way.

          If you mean that you know God exists as an objective fact, then we can amicably disagree.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You can know God as both ways. You can also not know him in either way.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala...you are doing a masterful job of tap dancing on the issue of knowing and believing. That is fine that you believe you know there is a god, but of course, proving it is an impossibility. That is the problem I have now and will always have. No proof, no belief. It really is quite simple really.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm glad that works for you. For most people, even experts, your philosophy doesn't work for them. It is not impossible to prove God. It may be impossible for me to prove God to you – but you aren't the judge of what is and isn't. You are just a guy looking for answers and/or trying to prove yourself on a religion blog.

          You aren't proving anything but yourself to me. You haven't presented anything I haven't heard before. You are playing the same tap dancing music dozens of others play on here all the time.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....I've presented nothing actually. I really am not concerned with what you believe or don't believe, and I highly suspect you don't care what I believe either. However, when anybody makes a blanket statement that they know something within a shadow of a doubt, the onus is on them to prove their point. You have not done that, and based on posts from others, you have never done that.

          You tap dance a lot. I really have wondered exactly why you are even bothering posting on this site. I'm curious, actually. I do it because there are atheist posters on this site that are genuinely intelligent and have very pertinent things to say. I use them when discussing this topic with my family and friends. I suspect that you are here out of sheer boredom.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:51 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You ARE presenting arguments. And you ARE concerned with what I believe and don't believe.

          You can TELL me you aren't. But I can SEE evidence that you are.

          The onus is not on me to prove God to you. I'm just sharing what I know. When you start questioning me that is fine. When you start dictating and lecturing me that provides evidence of something going on inside of you.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:56 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala...No....I really don't care, I'm just incredibly bored right now. But, I just realized that I am not so bored that I need to go back and forth with a person claiming to say something who in reality is really non-committal to everything. However, I will say that I congratulate you on your complete ambiguity on this site, though.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          More evidence that you ARE concerned.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Only your opinion of course. And quite worthless to me when you really get down to it.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is fine. I know some people have different opinions and appreciate what I say. I can't please everyone. The fact that 5 to 10 anti-theists on a religion blog think my opinions are worthless really doesn't bother me. They don't know me very well.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Why say one thing, and yet do another thing? Talk about "tap dancing".

          June 6, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • bostontola

          Are humans capable of knowing God? I would think our limited capacities would preclude that. I guess you know God as well as you can.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Dala
          If I were to say I know you are delusional you'd say that is only my opinion and that I cannot know. You might say I'm not qualified to make a judgement – while I'm not a trained professional, I do have experience with people and I can see what you write and compare that to the evidence.
          Compare that standard that you apply to others with the one you apply to yourself: You claim to "know" there is a god when it is really only your belief (or opinion).
          I have in the past, by analogy, tried to show you the difference between know and believe and your inconsistency when applying it to yourself and others.

          btw. I don't preach Stone Age philosophy – it is the context for the book upon which you base your beliefs.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Santa,

          You often try to dictate what you believe, and insist that I believe it or else I'm delusional. I have no idea why you ignore so many questionable things on this blog expressed by people, but when I say I know God exists you can't stand it.

          I say stone age philosophy, because you are not offering me anything new. People have thought and talked like you do for a long time.

          Your analogies just reinforce your preconceived notions that belief in God is delusional.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:44 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Do look up the definition of delusional.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          " having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions"

          When you dictate your beliefs and opinions to me, and try to force them on me, you sound delusional to me. You really have no idea what you are saying and are just preaching the personal atheist beliefs you hold so dear to your heart. The fact that you spend hours and hours, day after day challenging anyone who believes in God, while ignoring your own delusions and the delusions of others that hold the same delusions as you indicates you are not a person who should be throwing the delusional word at people and imagining you are being helpful. You just want to insult others and prove yourself right.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What about my posts is deluded?

          It does not go unnoticed that you avoid answering by attacking.

          You say that the bible not literal, that the bible is not god's authority – where does god get its authority from then? It can only be the creation story – this omnipotent being created the universe and is therefore so powerful it should be obeyed.
          That story fails. The only "evidence" for your god is the bible. All evidence we have points away from the personal gods, such as yours as described in the bible.

          You do your fair share of insults, wanting to be right, and wanting the last word.

          I explain why I say there is no evidence – you just say well there is, you know it, but don't have to support your position.

          June 6, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The Bible is a collection of stories, history, parable, poetry, songs, origin stories and so much more. Some parts are to be taken literally. Some, like the parables, are not. They are allegorical. I never said anything about God's authority. You must be confusing me with someone else.

          There is more than 1 origin story in the Bible. The one I think you refer to is what is called an origin story. It doesn't explain why God should be obeyed, it demonstrates the consequences of what happens when we don't. There is some logic to it.

          You tell me you personally have no evidence. That is good for you. It doesn't work for me. I do have evidence of God.

          June 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • ausphor

          bostontola
          Dala..
          I started a new thread with a modern day definition of Deism and why I think science will one day find the universal creative force, a God by any other name.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Science unveils scientific things.

          God isn't a scientific thing. He can operate outside of our realm. You need to search your heart for God. He wants your love, not your mind. He can use your mind – but He doesn't need it. He created you and this whole universe. There is nothing you can teach Him. He is teaching us how to love. Love is the most powerful thing in the universe. Love is something science cannot truthfully explain.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Ask a clinical psychologist what she would diagnose if a woman presented with a firm, unshakable belief that she were communicating with her dead child. Possibly, she might suggest that the woman's love for her child has caused her mind to manifest a delusion that she is actually talking to him, right?

          However, is there any rational reason why she should treat her differently than any of the people who believe they are communicating with Jesus, a figure that many claim to love as much, or more than their own children?

          June 6, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A clinical psychologist might conclude that about a woman communicating with her dead child.

          Yes, there are rational reasons why that is not the same thing as praying, meditating and communing with God.

          June 6, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          "He can operate outside of our realm."
          And so can ghosts, pixies, extra-dimentional aliens, shaman, voodoo witch doctors, wizards and a host of other beings ... supposedly. All that proves is that it's as easy to type ""He can operate outside of our realm" as it is to type "The four-sided triangle was north of the North Pole", but typing it doesn't make it true, right?

          "Love is something science cannot truthfully explain."
          But you don't have to rely on religion either. Poetry, music, prose, philosophy and maybe a few other mediums have also explored the intricacies and impact of love in our lives.

          June 6, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is easy to type that out. No, it doesn't make it true. I would never suggest that it does make it true. God is different from ghosts, pixies, extra-dimentional aliens, shaman, voodoo witch doctors, wizards and a host of other beings you are imagining.

          I never said you have to rely on religion. You just can't rely on science or rational thinking when dealing with some truths: like love.

          June 6, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          "Yes, there are rational reasons why that is not the same thing as praying, meditating and communing with God."

          Such as?

          June 6, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Nobody is seriously suggesting that my belief in God is a sign of mental illness, except for a few anti-theists on a blog.

          Studies also show that people who engage in religious activities, like praying, meditation and communing with God exhibit positive traits that point to mental soundness.

          June 6, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Some studies show just the opposite, that spiritual people are more likely to be mentally ill, but they think life has more meaning.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255894/Spiritual-people-likely-mentally-ill-think-life-meaning.html

          June 6, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I know. It is tough to know who to believe.

          I recommend testing it out yourself and doing what works best for you. That is what I do.

          June 6, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘Now, ask the priests concerning the law, saying, “If one carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and with the edge he touches bread or stew, wine or oil, or any food, will it become holy?”’”
          Then the priests answered and said, “No.”
          And Haggai said, “If one who is unclean because of a dead body touches any of these, will it be unclean?”
          So the priests answered and said, “It shall be unclean.”
          Then Haggai answered and said, “‘So is this people, and so is this nation before Me,’ says the Lord, ‘and so is every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean. Haggai 2:11-14

          June 6, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          – they are unregenerate, spiritually dead, unclean. touching them will not make them holy, however, if they are able to touch us we could become unclean. pray for His grace, that this does not happen.

          June 6, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          It doesn't have to be a mental "illness", just a misperception. Loads of people can look at the Hermann Grid below and actually "see" dark spots at the intersections of the white lines, even after they are shown that those spots aren't actually there.

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

          Remember also that almost everyone use to perceive that the sun revolved around the earth. That's still how it looks, but we know better now, don't we? So, mere popularity of a belief is not proof that it's true, right?

          June 6, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. Perceptions can be misleading. That is why it is important to test everything before completely accepting it. Don't just accept something because someone tells you it is logical or rational – investigate and find those things out for yourself. Thanks for the reminder.

          June 6, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Meditation isn't necessarily a religious activity, and it's similar to doing other things that allow you to "zone out", like going for long walks, chopping wood, and mowing the lawn. The trick, it seems, is to work your way down into your subconscious, which may be where the benefits of prayer come from too.

          Remember also that writing your thoughts out in the privacy of a diary was once called "meditation", and isn't that similar to some forms of prayer?

          In short, even if some religious practices can be demonstrated to work, that's not proof that they work according to the religious explanation for why they should. Take faith healing, for another example. Do you actually think that it's really necessary for God to be involved for people to walk away from John of God or Benny Hinn feeling "healed"?

          June 6, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I never said they were necessarily religious activities. Sorry if I suggested that. I know non-religious, even atheists, people that pray and meditate.

          June 6, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Was there any test of your perception that God is real which didn't depend on your perception again?

          June 6, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes. Of course.

          June 6, 2014 at 5:32 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I don't see what your point was in bringing up meditation then. If prayer works like meditation, and meditation is something that lots of non-religious people also do, that sorta suggests that prayer possibly isn't what the religions say it is, doesn't it?

          Gotta go for now. Good discussion. TTFN

          June 6, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Prayer is me talking to God. Meditation is me listening to God. People can meditate and listen to other things. Or try not listening to anything at all. I can't speak for them.

          June 6, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          What test was that? The scientific community would be very interested in a test for God.

          June 7, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • Dalahäst

          God isn't necessarily a scientific being detectable by the scientific community. Their are men and women who belong to the scientific community that know God.

          June 7, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Should have said an "objective" test for God.

          June 7, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • Dalahäst

          There is no "objective" test for love. You don't turn to the scientific community to answer what is love.

          June 7, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Most people understand meditation as listening to their inner selfs. Couldn't that be what you're actually doing when you think you're listening to God?

          June 7, 2014 at 11:31 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Jesus did say God is within us all.

          June 7, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          And Jesus might have been just listening to his own subconscious too. (smily)

          June 7, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          No, there is no "objective" test for love, but that still doesn't answer the question whether you're in love with a real God, or just the idea of God, right? I was asking how you test for that.

          June 7, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You test what people testify about God – both from the the Bible, people from history and people you personally know – in your own life. And then you decide for yourself based on your experience, knowledge and wisdom what works best for you.

          June 9, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          "Jesus did say God is within us all."

          And how do you know for certain that he was right? It might have been just as new-agey in principle as saying that everyone has an aura, or chakras.

          June 8, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have experienced this to be true. If it doesn't work for you, don't listen to me.

          June 9, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          If I put you in a room with someone who "experienced" the power of crystals, someone who has experienced the healing power of homeopathic cures, someone who has experienced alien abduction, someone who has experienced the truth of their past lives, someone who has experienced the benefits of Scientology, someone who has experienced actual hauntings, someone who has experienced being taken by fairies, and someone who has experienced contact with citizens of Atlantis, would you just accept the value of their personal "experience" the way you seem to be asking people to value yours?

          Fact of the matter is, there are dozens of popular beliefs out there that all rely on personal "experience", not just Christian belief. Christian claims are every bit as outlandish as these appear to be. So, if you were to be objective, you would have to treat all of the claims being made by these other people exactly the same as your own, correct? Are you willing to just accept them uncritically?

          June 9, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I haven't just accepted my belief in God uncritically. I'll put you in the same category as the fairy believers if you imagine I haven't.

          June 9, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala...you really didn't answer his question. I believe he was asking that how much credence to you give the people who say that because of personal experience, they were abducted by aliens, visited with fairies, etc? And, can you not understand how many of us look at your personal relationship with god the same way? Personal relationships as a proof of concept is extremely slim.

          June 9, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't give them much credence. I understand. I'm just sharing my experience.

          June 9, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
      • Reality

        Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/ (the cost ? almost $100 billion/yr.)

        From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

        Even now Catholic/Christian professors (e.g.Notre Dame, Catholic U, Georgetown) of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

        To wit;

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

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

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

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

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

        Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.

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

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

        The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

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

        An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,

        p.4

        "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

        p.168. by Ted Peters:

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

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

        June 5, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Was that a reply to my question? You've copied/pasted that packaged answer over 100 times on this blog alone. It sure sounds neat-o, but you didn't address my question.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
        • Reality

          Of course that was the answer to your question. Being a Christian means you believe in the resurrection of the preacher/magic man Jesus or you would not be a Christian.

          Regarding the details of the Infamous Resurrection Con, we "thu-mp" along with rational thinking, conclusions and reiteration to counter the millennia of false and flawed religious history and theology that Christians have been thu-mping for 2000 years. We will stop our reiterations when you stop yours.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The resurrection is a miracle, not a con. Who is this "we"? You are the only one making the claims and posting references to anti-Christianity that you cherry-picked from all the other opinions out there.

          June 6, 2014 at 12:23 am |
        • Reality

          For some of the "we's", read again the information provided. Also, see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb017.html and Professor Gerd Ludemann's studies published in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years and

          earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.

          June 6, 2014 at 7:25 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          "The resurrection is a miracle"
          If it really happened. If it didn't really happen then it might be a con, or it might be a mistaken interpretation of actual events. You have faith that it happened just like the book describes, but you don't really know for certain, do you?

          June 6, 2014 at 8:28 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I have faith in the resurrection, yes. I didn't see it with my own eyes. I've had experiences that strongly suggest that it did happen. The fact that I know God exists is strong evidence to consider in regards to Jesus and miracles.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Reality,

          You just mean "you" not "we". You are talking about your personal opinions. You self declare yourself as debunking all of Christianity. You can only do that for yourself, not other people.

          June 6, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Still, if you had your experiences in another culture you might see them as confirmation of another god, or some other supernatural thing, right?

          You have to remember that Muslims and Jews also believe in the same God, but do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. For them, God's existence is strong evidence of other things, things that you'd likely not believe.

          June 6, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • Reality

          Since Dalahast has turned to the tolerant side, we will note again that he needs to read what the experts have concluded about the resurrection and other Christian/religious cons. The reference list has been presented here many times.

          One of the other more interesting Christian/religion cons is the Angelic inanity. Once again for Dalahast's perusal in his current tolerant state of mind:

           AND THE INFAMOUS ANGELIC/SATANIC CONS CONTINUE TO WREAK STUPIDITY UPON THE WORLD

          Joe Smith had his Moroni and Satan/Perdition/Lucifer. (As does M. Romney)

          "Latter-day Saints like M. Romney also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

          Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God and of course Satan and his demons.

          Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around) and of course the jinn.

          Jesus and his family had/has Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented. (As do BO and his family)(As do Biden and Ryan)

          The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
          Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie/ugly/horn-blowing thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

          Some added references to "tink-erbells".

          newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm

          "The belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and As-syrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an As-syrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

          Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallu-cinating:

          "TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

          And tin-ker- bells go way, way back:

          "In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel called Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

          "The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hitti-tes and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

          "The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

          For added information see the review at:

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

          "The prophet Ezekiel described an incredible vision of cherubim angels in Ezekiel chapter 10 of the Torah and the Bible, mentioning that the angels’ wings were “completely full of eyes” (verse 12) and “under their wings was what looked like human hands” (verse 21). The angels each used their wings and something “like a wheel intersecting a wheel” (verse 10) that “sparkled like topaz” (verse 9) to move around."

          For a rather extensive review of angel wings, see http://angels.about.com/od/AngelBasics/a/Angels-Wings-And-Things.htm

          June 6, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          "The fact that I know God exists is strong evidence to consider in regards to Jesus and miracles."
          And, for Hindus, the fact that they know their god/s exist is strong evidence to consider in regards to reincarnation and their miracles. Fill in the same blanks for all other religions, and what does that prove other than confirmation bias?

          June 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          " The fact that I know God exists is strong evidence to consider "

          Not a fact....belief. Your belief is not evidence of anything.

          June 8, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • tallulah131

          " The fact that I know God exists is strong evidence to consider in regards to Jesus and miracles."

          Religious arrogance at it's finest. No, Dala. Your religious conviction is evidence only of your religious conviction. Every true believer of every one of the thousands of gods worshiped by humanity felt or feels the same conviction you do. Emotion does not qualify as evidence/

          June 8, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          And....let's not forget those people that KNOW they were abducted by aliens and probed. Or those that know that their dogs are talking to them. Delusion takes many forms.

          June 8, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Does it really matter?
      To paraphrase Forrest Gump:
      "Christian is as Christian does"...
      The definition of aChristian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and who strives to live in His image.
      All these different groups need to stop arguing over mythological minutiae.

      June 5, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
    • Vic

      The Pentecostal church is "charismatic" like most Evangelical churches, that's why the fiery style, it derives from the belief in the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

      BTW, there are two types of the Pentecostal Church, Trinitarian and Unitarian.

      p.s. I am a mainline Protestant.

      June 5, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
  11. Doris

    You don't have to go far in any part of the U.S. before you discover radically different kinds of Christians. From NYC, we only have to go to Harlem before we come across ATLAH Worldwide Missionary, led by Pastor James David Manning. Back in March, someone snapped a picture of the church's outdoor sign which included: "Jesus Would Stone Homos" and "Stoning is Still the Law", along with references from Matthew, John, Deuteronomy and of course Leviticus. Pastor Manning has also been known to be very outspoken against the President and the First Lady – even making derogatory statements about the First Lady's physical appearance. Evidently, Manning also posted a YouTube video about stoning in which he said Christians who refuse to stone gay people are "advocating lawlessness." YouTube has since removed ATLAH's video for violating the site's hate speech policy.

    I'm sure if you were in Westboro, Kansas, you would find some friendly Baptist churches, but then, well – there is that one who likes to demonstrate at the funerals of fallen soldiers claiming that they died because America is too kind to homosexuals.

    Likewise, I'm sure there are moderate Christian churches in Temecula, California, the base of the Abiding Truth Ministries, headed by Scott Lively. Several years ago Lively led a team of evangelicals from the U.S. to Africa with intent to incite the killing and jailing of gays there. Their efforts gained more traction with the blessing of the previous Pope and Anglican hierarchy who silenced or demoted the few members of their ranks who were trying to quell the violence. Of course now that the anti-gay legislation in Uganda has become law, the Christians who could influence issues there have now turned to their love and compassion "face". Lively has been charged in the U.S. by some Ugandans for crimes against humanity under an Alien Torte statute. Meanwhile, Lively continues his anti-homosexual campaigns in Latvia and Moldova according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Of course, they are just a few of the over 41,000 sects of Christianity.

    "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson

    June 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
    • tallulah131

      It's cute how christians think that their religion can't be as savage as the other religions they refute.

      June 5, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • Russ

        @ tallulah:
        "Modern people, with their insensitivity to all Christian nomenclature, do not sense any more the ghastly superlative that lay in the paradox of the formula "God on the cross" for the taste of classical antiquity. To this point there has never yet been anywhere such an audacious reversal – anything as dreadful, questioning, and questionable, as this formula: it promised an inversion of all ancient values."

        -Friedrich Nietzsche

        June 5, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          @russ

          "That's all folks"

          – Porky Pig

          June 5, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Russ

          @ gullible:
          "nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
          -H.L. Mencken

          June 5, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          @russ

          "There's a sucker born every minute"

          – PT Barnum

          June 5, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • Russ

          @ gullible:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

          June 5, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "To succeed in life, you need two things: ignorance and confidence." – Mark Twain

          Its no wonder the religious zealots have done so well till now...

          June 5, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • Russ

          @ neverbeen:
          1) interesting you didn't apply Twain's quote to himself (or for that matter, *yourself*)
          2) the skeptic's hypocrisy is the refusal to be skeptical of himself/skepticism itself (speaking of 'confidence')

          June 6, 2014 at 9:39 am |
  12. thefinisher1

    Atheism is a dishonest position. Your "non-belief" is nothing more than a childish rebellion. If you have mommy or daddy issues, please seek help. That's where your atheism comes from. I think most internet atheists are stuck in the teenage rebellion mode..pathetic!

    June 4, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
    • TruthPrevails1

      What's pathetic is that you show no respect to Daniel Burke and his request that you tone this rhetoric down. Do rules mean nothing to you or do you only listen to your god's rules?

      June 4, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
      • thefinisher1

        Lol. You do realize I speak differently than the other Finisher right? The other finisher is a nut case atheist who bashed his/her own atheism. He/she is one of you! He/she even admitted it...

        June 4, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          You do comprehend that clicking on you and clicking on the 'fake' one leads to the same page-right? Sorry but you're not fooling anyone.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          You do realize that only the fake finisher talks to himself? You do realize an atheist on your side admitted he/she was trying to make me leave? So, clearly atheism has a tendency to make atheists do irrational things!😜

          June 4, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Finny is nothing but a sad little troll with such a dreary life that he/she must pretend to be two people in order to have a friend.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          The facts still remain true. Atheism is indeed false.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Ah, Finny. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass. Why don't you go outside and play with yourself. You could use some air.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Being butthurt only makes it more true😝

          June 4, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Yes finny does live in a world all of his own...nothing but a blemish on the human race.

          Finny: Fact=You don't care about rules and the word 'respect' means nothing to you. Please go locate the nearest sewer rat...maybe it'll be your friend-matches your mentality in the least.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          Except that wasn't me. An atheist on your side did the flaming yesterday. Notice how he/she didn't show up? If atheists are so "logical", you would've figured out that I never argued with myself before. An atheist on your side is really angry and butthurt that he/she wants me to leave. He/she admitted it, idiot.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Hey, Truth: Rats are actually smart and have been known to exhibit compassion. Don't wish Finny on them. They're already much better people than he is.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Except it is you finny...once again, clicking on either of you leads to the same page, a quick check of the coding tells us you're both the same person. You do comprehend that if one of you gets blocked, the other does also-right? You and the fake are the SAME person...you're not fooling anyone. I hope that when Daniel gets to the office tomorrow he will keep his word and stop you once and for all...your hateful rants hold no truth, never have pertinence to the article at hand and only waste blog space.

          Tallulah: True enough.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • thefinisher1

          LOLZ. Except I won't. The IP address would be different. How stupid are you? Has logic left your atheism? Does it even exist in today's atheism? Hmm. The only person you are fooling is yourself 😜

          June 4, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          So. If it "left", they they had it once. Please tell us when you think atheism did have the logic you just admitted it had, before it left.

          June 4, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          please, please stop feeding it.

          June 4, 2014 at 11:51 pm |
        • fintronics

          Ignore the troll

          June 5, 2014 at 7:22 am |
      • awanderingscot

        there goes pastor "truth", doing what she professes to despise, preaching.

        June 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Cute and I'm guessing you consider reminders (look back a page) preaching...I see you still haven't learned to use a dictionary. Before jumping in, check facts (oh right, this isn't in your bible but then again that's not fact either...although it appears to be your guideline for living and in turn being an ass).
          Your support for finny shows what we already know about you...same low-level intellect and same hate for those who don't share your absurd belief.
          Sorry if you're feeling persecuted.

          June 5, 2014 at 5:22 am |
    • realbuckyball

      The questions is, "How" (since you actually know no atheists), "did you arrive at this conclusion ?" What study did you use ? What evidence do you have ? Jesus told you "judge not". Clearly you think you don't have to follow his command. Why is that ? Are you some sort of exception to his rule ?

      Since everyone knows you made that up, with no supporting evidence, I guess we can dismiss everything you say. Liar in one, Liar in all. That s the standard. Right ? Thanks for proving yourself to be what you are.

      June 4, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
  13. SeaVik

    "For someone in this situation to be "liberal" they'd have to say the Bible says it's OK to kill one of them. But that's not what you said." From Topher, earlier.

    No Topher, many of us don't consider abortion to be killing. You would kill the mother rather than abort the child so you would be doing the opposite of what a strict / conservative interpretation of "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

    Similarly, unless you are a vegan, you again take a liberal interpretation of "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

    I could go on and on. Point is, there aren't many issues (any?) that the bible can't be used to argue both sides.

    June 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      SeaVik

      "No Topher, many of us don't consider abortion to be killing. You would kill the mother rather than abort the child so you would be doing the opposite of what a strict / conservative interpretation of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"."

      Not what I said at all. Please don't be dishonest. What I said was save both of them. So I'm not killing either of them.

      "Similarly, unless you are a vegan, you again take a liberal interpretation of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"."

      Nope. The Bible says we can eat meat. In several places.

      "I could go on and on. Point is, there aren't many issues (any?) that the bible can't be used to argue both sides."

      But you are taking things out of context to do it. And besides that, like I said, on "major" issues (God, salvation) we agree on and minor issues we can disagree on.

      June 4, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
      • SeaVik

        “What I said was save both of them. So I'm not killing either of them.”

        That wasn’t an option. Without the ab.ortion, the mother dies. Please stop being dishonest. You would rather allow a mother to die than ab.ort an unborn child to save her life.

        “Nope. The Bible says we can eat meat. In several places.”

        So since you very clearly aren’t allowed to kill according to the bible, I take it you only consume meat from animals who died of natural causes?

        “But you are taking things out of context to do it.”

        But don’t you see, that’s just the point. Who are you to decide what the context actually is and what the bible “really” means? Anyone can use it to mean whatever they want and just claim those who disagree are misinterpreting it. That’s why there’s no such thing as a conservative or liberal interpretation. They’re all equally dependant on what the believer wants to believe.

        And calling your belief in god / salvation a more "major" issue than the life and death of humans who actually exist is seriously warped. Your fantasies are not "major" in comparison to the lives of humans or animals.

        June 4, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          SeaVik

          "That wasn’t an option."

          Then it's a strawman.

          "Without the ab.ortion, the mother dies."

          No such condition exists.

          "You would rather allow a mother to die than ab.ort an unborn child to save her life."

          No. I'd rather they both live.

          "So since you very clearly aren’t allowed to kill according to the bible, I take it you only consume meat from animals who died of natural causes?"

          You can't kill other people. I don't believe for a second you're being honest right now.

          "But don’t you see, that’s just the point."

          Then don't take things out of context. Read it exogetically.

          "Who are you to decide what the context actually is and what the bible “really” means?"

          Take the grammatical historical interpretation. We know this because we know how the original church held these things. They were in a better position than we are today, so yet another reason not to try to make Scripture fit modern "morality."

          "Anyone can use it to mean whatever they want and just claim those who disagree are misinterpreting it."

          They can, but they'd be wrong. You can't change the meaning of Scripture.

          "And calling your belief in god / salvation a more "major" issue than the life and death of humans who actually exist is seriously warped. Your fantasies are not "major" in comparison to the lives of humans or animals."

          Why? Nothing is more important than God. And if you're so concerned with human life, what is your stance on abortion?

          June 4, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • SeaVik

          “Then it's a strawman. No such condition exists.”

          Now you’re a doctor? Of course there are situations where the choice comes down to the life of the mother or an unborn baby. I understand why you continue to skirt the question though.

          “No. I'd rather they both live.”

          Not an option in the scenario at hand, remember?

          “You can't kill other people.”

          I suppose that would be one interpretation. Another would be Thou Shalt Not Kill period. Of course, not everyone takes the bible literally, which is again, the entire point. You interpret it to mean whatever you want.

          “You can't change the meaning of Scripture.”

          Again, there is no clear meaning, only your interpretation which you continue to illustrate.

          “Nothing is more important than God.”

          Um, yes, things that we all know are real are more important than things that are infinitely unlikely to exist.

          “And if you're so concerned with human life, what is your stance on abortion?”

          My stance is that birth control should be used so that abortions aren’t required. My stance is that it is impossible to determine when life truly begins and it would be the height of arrogance for me to tell a woman and a doctor what they should do.

          June 4, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
        • tallulah131

          "No such condition exists."

          http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/13/2001191/beatriz-abortion-el-salvador/

          June 4, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          SeaVik
          statistics show that very very few abortions are done to save the life of the mother. your argument is dishonest.

          June 4, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          If your wife/mother/sister/daughter required an abortion to save her life, would you just say "tough luck" or do you SUPPORT abortion?

          June 4, 2014 at 8:49 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "statistics show that very very few abortions are done to save the life of the mother. your argument is dishonest."

          How is that dishonest? I'm posing a question that exposes the hypocritical stance of many religious people. The fact that it's rare is irrelevant.

          June 4, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          The Bible loves a good child murder...!

          Psalms 139:7

          How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

          June 4, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I forgot where I heard this, but it sums it up fairly well...

          "No action should be legally permissible if its intent is to take the life of an innocent human being. Therefore, in recognition of the biological reality that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, the unborn child is ent.itled to the protection of the law under all circu.mstances and at every stage of pregnancy.

          In those rare instances in which the pregnancy poses an immediate and life threatening risk to the mother, she should be allowed to direct her physician to perform any medical procedure that is necessary to save her life, provided that in that effort, the physician must always do whatever is possible to save the lives of both the mother and the baby.

          If, as an unintended consequence of saving the mother’s life, her unborn child loses its life, that should be viewed as a profoundly, deeply sad, and regrettable, but lawful outcome."

          June 5, 2014 at 7:43 am |
        • SeaVik

          "Therefore, in recognition of the biological reality that human life begins at the moment of fertilization..."

          That's far from biological reality.

          June 5, 2014 at 9:23 am |
      • SeaVik

        And one more thing – Theo, although clearly immoral and completely delusional, seems to be the resident expert on the bible. He thinks the bible justifies the Holocaust. Do you agree with the resident bible expert, since according to you, the bible is very clear in its meaning? Or are you moral enough to know that no book of fiction can justify the murder of millions?

        June 4, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "He thinks the bible justifies the Holocaust"
          -------------–
          What I said was that the Bible explained the reasoning behind events like the holocaust. It is no different than when Israel was led captive into Babylon.

          Israel has been under a curse by God for their rejection of Him, and this was made readily apparent in the object lesson when Jesus cursed the fig tree in Mark 11.

          Jesus’ apostles finally understood when they passed by the fig tree again and saw that it was indeed withered from the roots, and Jesus says to them: “Have faith in God.” This was in opposition to the false teaching of the religious leaders of Judaism who taught that salvation came from the strict keeping of the law. The true gospel is salvation through faith in God alone, not works.

          Matthew expounds on this condemnation of the scribes and priests in 8 woes that Jesus pronounces on them in Matthew 23:13-26. Judaism is spiritually bankrupt and is indeed cursed by God.

          In Luke 13:6-9, Jesus tells of another fig tree that was fruitless. A plea was made to give it more time in hopes of producing fruit – time had indeed been given to it, but it was not fruitful, and Jesus pronounces a curse on the fig tree.

          This was a reminder to them of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 where God said that failure to obey God would bring about curse, after curse, after curse…

          June 5, 2014 at 7:49 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Ezekiel 16 – here, in a passage that is often not even taught in modern Synagogues due to its graphic depiction of Israel, God explains His love for His own.

          Israel was unlovable, unwanted, hated, and despised, but for no other reason than simply because God chose to love them, He loved them, and lavished them with His divine blessings.

          Then Israel became proud and worshipped idols. Verses 46-47 say that Israel had acted worse than Sodom. So God gave them over to their enemies and punished them in order that He might bring about their repentance. BUT, because God chose to love them, He establishes an everlasting covenant with them so that they shall know that He is the LORD, and God will forgive them, for they are His.

          And in the last days, this will be so, and they will finally repent. (See: Zechariah 12-13)

          June 5, 2014 at 8:09 am |
        • SeaVik

          "What I said was that the Bible explained the reasoning behind events like the holocaust."

          Yes, like I said. You think the bible justifies the Holocaust. Sick.

          June 5, 2014 at 9:20 am |
        • Madtown

          God explains His love for His own.
          -----–
          "His own"?! All of the human race he created, or just Israel?

          June 5, 2014 at 10:04 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Israel has been under a curse by God for their rejection of Him, and this was made readily apparent in the object lesson when Jesus cursed the fig tree in Mark 11."

          So basically Theo believes that Hitler merely gassed 7 million bad figs, so no big deal right?

          What disgusting theology that has no place among humans.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:31 am |
      • realbuckyball

        The vast majority of pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion.
        Thus the deity seems to have "designed" abortion, and he is the largest abortionist, now isn't he ?
        You can't "kill" a clump of cells with no neural tube. It's not a human. It's a potential human.
        Not one person on this blog can tell us EXACTLY when in the complex process of fertilization and implantation they think the two gametes become a "human".

        June 4, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Bible makes it clear that God assigns a lesser value to infants under 1 month old.

      "And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, "Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them."
      – Numbers 3:14-15
      God tells Moses NOT to count babies less than a month old.

      "The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; for a female, set her value at thirty shekels ; for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekelse; for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekelsh and of a female at ten shekels."
      – Leviticus 27
      Infants have only a fraction of the worth of an adult to God.

      In Chile, abortion is illegal in any and all circu/mstances.
      The Chilean government forced an 11 year old girl, who was impregnated by her step-father, to carry her child to term.
      Do you think that's ethically sound?

      Should women who undergo in-vitro fertilization be governmentally mandated to carry all fertilized eggs to term?

      June 5, 2014 at 8:05 am |
      • awanderingscot

        D0C
        are you serious?

        June 5, 2014 at 10:48 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          If your wife/sister/daughter/mother needed an abortion to save their life, would you tell them "tough luck" or do you SUPPORT ABORTION?

          June 5, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          i might actually be able to answer if i weren't being c3nsured

          June 5, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          "Tough luck" or do you SUPPORT ABORTION? Both are not censored answers.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:02 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          LOL ... i'll just post another time, when you're not here to c3nsure me

          June 5, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          Don't be such a dim bulb. No blogger can censure you. You are probably being automatically censored for using prohibitied letter combinations like t-i-t, h-o-m-o, r-a-p-e, etc.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Much like your non-existent deity, there is no moderator sitting there censuring you. You are being blocked by the bad word filter even though you may be using a non-bad word, it just may contain parts of a bad word, like const i tution. They don't want you talking about the tiny Tlt mouse, so you have to get creative with your spelling.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Yes, I am serious.
          In your opinion, was it ethical for the Chilean government to force a pre-teen ra/pe victim to give birth?

          June 6, 2014 at 8:04 am |
        • kudlak

          awanderingscot
          The problem with the anti-choice argument is that there is no legal precedent for anyone to be obligated to save another person's life, even without threat to their own. Even today, however, pregnancy is risky. Women still come to harm delivering babies and some even die in the process. That puts pregnancy in the category of a voluntary activity, as the state has no right to demand that someone risk their lives for another, even in the case of someone's actual, live children. Say your daughter needs a kidney. Does the state have the right to demand that you give one up? Of course not!

          If it did then blood transfusion and organ donating would be mandatory, but the state recognizes that it is an individual's choice to give. Therefore, donating a womb for the incubation of a fetus is also the individual's right. See how that goes. It's not murder if you don't donate a kidney to save someone, and it wouldn't be murder if you don't rush into a burning building to save someone, so it isn't murder if you don't want to be pregnant. That simple!

          June 6, 2014 at 8:18 am |
  14. Woody

    Same nonsense, new packaging. Another con artist reeling in the suckers and laughing all the way to the bank.

    "20 and 30-something-year-olds are waiting in long lines to get into Hillsong's services."

    I suspect many of the 20 and 30-somethings are there mostly to check out the other 20 and 30-somethings, and not for religious reasons.

    June 4, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • tallulah131

      They'll watch the show, hook up with new people, then move on to the next shiny thing. "Hip" has a short shelf-life.

      June 4, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
  15. bostontola

    Pastor Lentz works in Hipsterious ways. (sorry)

    June 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
  16. bostontola

    And now for something most of us would agree is pure BS:

    Ghanaian Witch Doctor Claims to Have Caused Cristiano Ronaldo's World Cup Injury

    Yes, you read the headline correctly. A witch doctor from Ghana is claiming responsibility for Cristiano Ronaldo's knee injury, which has put the Portugal star's fitness in question for the 2014 World Cup.

    Witch doctor Nana Kwaku Bonsam first talked of conjuring a Ronaldo World Cup injury a few months back, per Sportive23. With Ghana set to face Ronaldo's Portugal in Group G, Bonsam was hoping he could keep the reigning Ballon d'Or winner from having an influence.

    With Ronaldo now battling tendinosis in his left knee, Bonsam told Angel FM radio station, per The Guardian:

    "I know what Cristiano Ronaldo’s injury is about, I’m working on him.

    I am very serious about it. Last week, I went around looking for four dogs and I got them to be used in manufacturing a special spirit called Kahwiri Kapam.

    I said it four months ago that I will work on Cristiano Ronaldo seriously and rule him out of the World Cup or at least prevent him from playing against Ghana and the best thing I can do is to keep him out though injury."

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2085908-ghanaian-witch-doctor-claims-to-have-caused-cristiano-ronaldos-world-cup-injury?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_c3

    I personally find this no more outlandish than any other belief in supernatural, but it is pretty nuts.

    June 4, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Arguably it's no stranger than going to church on Sunday and believing that you are eating the flesh of a God that simultaneously manifests itself as it's own father and son with a universal spirit thrown in for good measure.

      June 4, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
  17. Dyslexic doG

    "Pastor Carl Lentz is the main attraction"

    Jesus must have been something like this man Carl Lentz. A charismatic preacher man. Veins sticking out in his neck. Preaching all sorts of fire and brimstone then switching to love and acceptance. Throw in a few magic tricks and bring in a few phony people from the audience to be "healed" in the same way as snake oil salesmen have done throughout the millennia. In an unsophisticated, uneducated age, it would have been an easy scam.

    All the rest is 2,000 years of exaggerated story telling and the story tellers' lust for power and money.

    F R A U D ! ! !

    June 4, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
  18. Dyslexic doG

    As there are over 41,000 sects of Christianity, which one interprets the bible correctly?

    June 4, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
    • MadeFromDirt

      Dyslexic, it's a simple test: Does the interpretation glorify God, or does it detract from His sovereignty and elevate man?

      June 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        @Dirty. Not really an answer. Have any of the sects got it right? What are some of the biggest misinterpretations of other sects?

        June 4, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        @Madefromdirt,
        I'm confused. Wouldn't "elevating" man also glorify God as man's supposed creator?

        June 4, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          MidwestKen

          "I'm confused. Wouldn't "elevating" man also glorify God as man's supposed creator?"

          NO. What glorifies God is understanding how LOW (not high) man is for rejecting God at every turn and sinning against Him — and how God, loving us despite our wretchedness, took the punishment that we deserve on the cross and defeated death so that we can live. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." John 3:16-17

          June 4, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • Madtown

          ".. but in order that the world might be saved through him."
          -----
          All the world? Did God define "the world" as only the Middle East? Did God not consider North America, and the humans HE CREATED that lived there at the time, part of the world? He didn't send a son/daughter to visit them.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          But aren't we supposed to celebrate the beauty, awe-inspiring , perfection of nature as God's supposed creation? Are we not supposedly God's creation, too?

          June 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Madtown

          "All the world? Did God define "the world" as only the Middle East?"

          Jew and Gentile alike. That's ALL the world.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          MidwestKen

          "But aren't we supposed to celebrate the beauty, awe-inspiring , perfection of nature as God's supposed creation? Are we not supposedly God's creation, too?"

          Neither man nor nature is perfect. It is fallen — corrupted by sin.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • Madtown

          Jew and Gentile alike. That's ALL the world.
          ----
          Ah, so Jesus came to save the humans in North America, it's just that those humans had no concept of his existence because he couldn't be troubled to visit them to deliver the message of salvation. Got it. That makes perfect sense.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • Madtown

          corrupted by sin.
          --–
          How does the non-human animal kingdom sin?

          June 4, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • otoh2

          Not only that, Madtown, "Jesus" couldn't even be bothered to convince his own people back then - the Hebrews - 99%+ of whom did not believe in his divinity... and they were right there on the spot in Israel, quite available to easily win over.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          Would you please stop calling people sinners when you do not know a damn thing about them and are JUDGING them by your stupid beliefs from the book of silly. Sin is a Christian problem, it does not have any influence on those that do not believe.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Madtown

          "How does the non-human animal kingdom sin?"

          Didn't say they did. I only said they are affected by it. Or at least that was my intention.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          ausphor

          "Sin is a Christian problem, it does not have any influence on those that do not believe."

          Belief has no bearing on reality. So if the Bible is correct, it affects you whether you believe in it or not.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          Only an idiot would believe that the nonsense in the book of silly affects people that never heard of it and/or think it is just a BS myth. Take a bow, you qualify.

          June 4, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
        • Madtown

          So if the Bible is correct, it affects you whether you believe in it or not.
          ----–
          To be intellectually honest and consistent, you'd then have to acknowledge that the holy books of other religions, even those you're unaware of, effect you.

          June 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Madtown

          "To be intellectually honest and consistent, you'd then have to acknowledge that the holy books of other religions, even those you're unaware of, effect you."

          IF they are true. Yes.

          June 4, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @noahsdadtopher,
          But aren't we supposed to see God's supposed handiwork in "what has been made?"
          If that is fallen, then how is it "clearly seen"?

          June 4, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          MidwestKen

          "If that is fallen, then how is it "clearly seen"?"

          I don't know what you mean.

          June 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
        • ausphor

          Topher
          The sanist thing you have ever written on this blog.
          Belief has no bearing on reality.
          Do you not see why people on this blog consider you as a psychopath? As a born again jesus freaking creationist nutter you have lost all touch with the rational world and soon you will be abusing your child by brainwashing the poor little kid, sad very sad.

          June 4, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          How are God's supposed "eternal power and divine nature ... clearly seen," if all we see is fallen?

          June 4, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          MidwestKen

          "How are God's supposed "eternal power and divine nature ... clearly seen," if all we see is fallen?"

          Ah, I see what you are saying. Because you have the Creation — you can look at it, see its complexity and all the order and KNOW it didn't come about by accident or an explosion. Plus you have a conscience that tells you the same thing.

          June 4, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • Vic

          Just quickly:

          @June 4, 2014 at 3:47 pm |

          You never know, there might have been a final call by God of a "Universal Atonement" —meaning all— that was not directly revealed to man. There is a "Limited Atonement vs. Unlimited Atonement Debate" amongst Christians regarding the matter, based on "Universal Atonement" verses from Scripture.

          1 John 2:2
          "2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." (NASB)

          1 Timothy 4:10
          "10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers." (NASB)

          @June 4, 2014 at 5:27 pm |

          God is revealed and His attributes are clearly seen through His wondrous creation, this universe and life in it. Now, the wages of sin are death and separation from God; therefore, since the fall of Adam & Eve, God made His creation mortal—hence death—and put a curse on it—hence separation—till the end of time. That's what's meant by fallen. Consequently, all this creation will pass away, and a new creation will be made.

          June 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Your conjecture is duly noted, Vic.

          June 4, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • Vic

          @June 4, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Reply

          To add:

          Nothing glorifies God more than Faith/Belief in Him, and man cannot be glorified besides God.

          Hebrews 11:6
          "6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." (NASB)

          1 Thessalonians 2:6
          "6 nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority." (NASB)

          Isaiah 42:8
          "8 “I am the Lord, that is My name;
          I will not give My glory to another,
          Nor My praise to graven images." (NASB)

          June 5, 2014 at 7:57 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Vic: Do you comprehend what it means to use circular reasoning? Do you comprehend why using circular reasoning might not be so logical?

          June 5, 2014 at 8:13 am |
      • Madtown

        Does the interpretation glorify God, or does it detract from His sovereignty and elevate man?
        -----
        Yep, it's just that simple. LOL.

        June 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
  19. otoh2

    Regarding psongs, psalms and psonnets:

    "Anything too stupid to be said is sung." —Voltaire

    June 4, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      ""Anything too stupid to be said is sung."
      -----------–
      Katy Perry built a career on that.

      On psalms here's the ultimate authority:

      "It's like those miserable Psalms– they're so depressing." – God (Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

      June 4, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
      • Doris

        Or how about Bread's 1972 song "Baby I'm A Want You".....lol

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mflw8-BZdV0

        June 4, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
      • observer

        How about 3 minutes and 45 seconds of mindless "la la la" in "Hey Jude"?

        June 5, 2014 at 10:00 am |
        • hotairace

          Hey Jude makes way more sense than The Babble. . .

          June 5, 2014 at 10:31 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Profound, soulful lyrics:
        "Ass ass ass ass ass ass ass / Ass ass ass ass ass ass ass / Ass ass ass ass ass ass ass / Stop…”
        – Big Sean ft. Nicki Minaj, Dance Ass

        Or my personal favourite:
        "I've got soul but I'm not a soldier."
        – The Killers, “All These Things That I’ve Done”

        That's like saying "I've got ham but I'm not a hamster"

        June 5, 2014 at 10:25 am |
    • awanderingscot

      Voltaire never said that.

      June 5, 2014 at 8:42 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        How about these words of wisdom from Voltaire:

        "The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning."
        "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."
        "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities."

        June 5, 2014 at 10:16 am |
      • Akira

        Yes, Voltaire did say that.
        He also said,
        Faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason to believe.
        And:
        God gave us the gift of life; it is us to give ourselves the gift of living well.

        June 5, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • Akira

          [...] it is UP to us [...]

          My kingdom for and edit button.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • igaftr

          sorry Akira, but scot was actually correct for once.

          The line "Does one say share?-Pooh, our Comic Opera-Makers are not so nice now a Days—what is not worth being spoken, is sung" Is from act I, scene II of The Bbarber Of Seville 1775, by Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

          In The Spectator, 21 March 1711, Addison wrote of "an establish'd Rule, which is receiv'd as such to this Day, That nothing is capable of being well set to Musick, that is not Nonsense.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • Akira

          Really? A lot of resources on the net has it wrongly attributed, then. Not surprising.

          June 5, 2014 at 11:39 am |
  20. noahsdadtopher

    Some of the other Hillsong churches/ministries are known for being squishy at best. Hope that isn't the case here.

    June 4, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • doobzz

      Like all other churches/religions.

      June 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      What do you mean by "squishy" ?

      June 4, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Liberal view of Scripture. Often times changing it to fit modern day "morality."

        June 4, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Churches change with culture or they die.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Churches can change. Scripture can't. Either it's God's Word or it isn't.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          @topher. Which parts of the bible are god's word and which aren't?

          June 4, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          All 66 books are God's Word.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • SeaVik

          How do you define a "liberal view" vs. a "conservative view" of the bible? The bible conflicts with itself endlessly, so in any case, the reader has to decide for himself what to believe / agree with and what to discard. I think you really mean a politically liberal interpretation.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Interpretations of the bible changes as cultures change. That's the only way that christianity can survive.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          When I say "liberal" or "conservative" views regarding the Bible, I don't mean politics. LIberal basically means the view and position on the text changes. Conservative means they don't.

          Like I said above, churches can change. However, Scripture doesn't change. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Matthew 24:35.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          tallulah131

          "Interpretations of the bible changes as cultures change."

          And that's what I mean by "liberal." However, not everyone holds this position. There are plenty of Christians who hold that the text means exactly what it meant when the books were written and the same as how the early church fathers held it ... which is that it is the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

          "That's the only way that christianity can survive."

          Not true. See above. It's survived this way for 2000 years now.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "When I say "liberal" or "conservative" views regarding the Bible, I don't mean politics. LIberal basically means the view and position on the text changes. Conservative means they don't."

          I know that's what you mean, but as I explained, that doesn't make sense. The bible can be interpreted many different ways because it is inconsistent, unclear and self-conflicting. The only way a "conservative" interpretation means anything is if you mean it politically. Otherwise, all you're really saying is interpreting the bible the way you interpret it is "conservative", which isn't what the word means.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          As a Protestant, you do realize that you've fewer books in your Bible than the Catholics (who are the original Christian church).

          June 4, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve.

          So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • Madtown

          However, Scripture doesn't change
          --–
          Except when humans change it, which has happened a countless number of times.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Doc Vestibule

          "As a Protestant, you do realize that you've fewer books in your Bible than the Catholics (who are the original Christian church)."

          Yes. The Apocrypha aren't in the Protestant Bibles. They were taken out because no one, including the Jews, considered them to be Scripture (from God.) And no, the Catholics were not the first Christians. The Catholics didn't come about for many hundreds of years.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • tallulah131

          The words are the same, Topher, but they have only the meaning assigned to them by the humans interpreting them. For instance, most churches don't do things like kill witches: They have no longer interpret "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" as a command that must be followed. I guess those cults in Africa that still do are the only remaining "true believers".

          June 4, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          SeaVik

          "The bible can be interpreted many different ways because it is inconsistent, unclear and self-conflicting."

          Well, there are certainly things different Christians can disagree on (minor issues.) But we agree on the major ones. And as far as the Bible being "inconsistent, unclear and self-conflicting" ... only to those who don't like what it says when read plainly. There are no contradictions.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          tallulah131

          "The words are the same, Topher, but they have only the meaning assigned to them by the humans interpreting them."

          Liberalism. I know people want to change the meanings. But I would also disagree with them. If it meant one thing to the people around 100 AD, then that's all that it can mean. I can't then change it to match modern culture. That would be taking it out of context.

          "For instance, most churches don't do things like kill witches: They have no longer interpret "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" as a command that must be followed."

          No. We're not under that covenant. We're under a new one.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • Dyslexic doG

          after 2,000 years, christians have an escape hatch and/or an asinine excuse for every line of their book.

          they trot them out on demand and in their cognitive dissonance, feel like they have proved something.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "But we agree on the major ones. And as far as the Bible being "inconsistent, unclear and self-conflicting" ... only to those who don't like what it says when read plainly. There are no contradictions."

          You agree on the major ones? Um, how about abortion and h.o.mos.ex.uality? How about birth control? Now about the death penalty? How about slavery or The Holocaust? There are Christians who claim the bible supports both sides of each of these issues. That's pretty contradictory if you ask me!

          Again, when you say a "conservative" interpretation, you just mean YOUR interpretation.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • Madtown

          There are no contradictions.
          ----
          Except when there are, such as differing details of Jesus' life described in the Gospels.

          June 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          SeaVik

          "You agree on the major ones? Um, how about abortion and h.o.mos.ex.uality?"

          Those issues have nothing to do with salvation. So from a soteriological standpoint, they are minor. Though I'd say they are pretty important issues to make a stand on. The liberal position would say the Bible doesn't speak on these things or comes up with excuses why we don't have to follow what God says about them.

          "How about birth control? Now about the death penalty? How about slavery or The Holocaust?"

          If you were a Christian and disagreed with me on these issues, we'd still be brothers in Christ.

          "There are Christians who claim the bible supports both sides of each of these issues. That's pretty contradictory if you ask me!"

          But that's not the Bible being contradictory. That's man reading the Bible isogetically (having a standpoint and then reading a verse and making the verse fit the belief. This is the incorrect way to read Scripture. You read the verse first, then fit your understanding to IT.)

          "Again, when you say a "conservative" interpretation, you just mean YOUR interpretation."

          Actually, I don't typically use the word "conservative" when talking about the Bible. But if you had to label my stance, it would be conservative, yes. Because it's clearly not liberal.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Madtown

          "Except when there are, such as differing details of Jesus' life described in the Gospels."

          Of which there are no contradictions. Only different details given.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "Those issues have nothing to do with salvation. So from a soteriological standpoint, they are minor."

          Now that's just idiotic. Many of those issues are matters of life and death and you call them minor? Yet again, you make it clear that this is about YOUR views, not anyone else's.

          How do you consider your views conservative when another Christian with completely different views thinks he is interpreting the bible correctly and you are not? How are his views more liberal than yours? They're not, they're just different. You just are attracted to the word conservative and repelled by the word liberal because of your political views, which was my original point.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          SeaVik

          "Now that's just idiotic. Many of those issues are matters of life and death and you call them minor? Yet again, you make it clear that this is about YOUR views, not anyone else's."

          Minor when it comes to salvation, which is already what I said. I'm sure you know my stance, that those things are murder. They are important. They just don't determine whether you're a Christian according to the Bible (whether you'll be in Heaven or Hell.)

          How do you consider your views conservative when another Christian with completely different views thinks he is interpreting the bible correctly and you are not? How are his views more liberal than yours? They're not, they're just different. You just are attracted to the word conservative and repelled by the word liberal because of your political views, which was my original point.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • Madtown

          Of which there are no contradictions. Only different details given.
          -----–
          Matthew 2:15 – The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 – The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Sorry, I missed this last part ...

          "How do you consider your views conservative when another Christian with completely different views thinks he is interpreting the bible correctly and you are not?"

          Like what, for instance? Perhaps we're speaking past each other?

          June 4, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          Madtown

          "Matthew 2:15 – The infant Christ was taken into Egypt. Luke 2:22 – The infant Christ was NOT taken to Egypt."

          " and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew 2:15
          "And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord" Luke 2:22

          These verses aren't contradictory at all. The time in Jerusalem came before they left for Egypt. Read the passages before this one in Matthew. If flushes it all out for you.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • SeaVik

          "How do you consider your views conservative when another Christian with completely different views thinks he is interpreting the bible correctly and you are not?"

          "Like what, for instance? Perhaps we're speaking past each other?"

          For example, what do you do if a woman requires an ab.ortion to save her life? One could argue that refusing to give her an ab.ortion would be a violation of the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill. Therefore, a strict / conservative interpretation of the bible would require an abortion in that case. You just said you are against abortion. So in that case, you have a liberal interpretation (by your definition, that is). In reality, since the bible can be interpreted to mean just about anything, it's pretty much useless and there's certainly no clear "conservative" interpretation as you claim.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • noahsdadtopher

          SeaVik

          "For example, what do you do if a woman requires an ab.ortion to save her life?"

          What condition would that be?

          "One could argue that refusing to give her an ab.ortion would be a violation of the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill. Therefore, a strict / conservative interpretation of the bible would require an abortion in that case. You just said you are against abortion. So in that case, you have a liberal interpretation (by your definition, that is). In reality, since the bible can be interpreted to mean just about anything, it's pretty much useless and there's certainly no clear "conservative" interpretation as you claim."

          Not giving her an abortion is not murdering her. It's a straw man. Now, if you're saying the woman has a condition in which the treatment would likely kill the baby, we give her the treatment to attempt to save her life. Meanwhile, we do everything we can to also save the baby. But we don't intentionally kill either one.

          For someone in this situation to be "liberal" they'd have to say the Bible says it's OK to kill one of them. But that's not what you said.

          June 4, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          ..and He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6
          – while Christ did not explicitly condemn gai six as with many other sins, we know He did condemn it. Christ condemned all sin and just because it was not recorded in the four books of gospel does not mean He condoned it.

          June 5, 2014 at 8:44 am |
        • awanderingscot

          – Christ thru His apostles did condemn gai six and other sin, through the Holy Spirit. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; John 16:12-13a / "and when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" John 16:8. it was the divinely inspired writings of the apostles that brought this prophesy to fulfillment.

          June 5, 2014 at 8:46 am |
        • awanderingscot

          – This pastor and church is symptomatic of an apostate church (all organized Christianity for the most part with some exceptions) is permeated with leaven and is a sure sign of the end times.
          'Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.' – Matthew 16:12
          – the church today is filled with modern day Pharisees and Sadducees however we can look up and rejoice because our deliverance is near.

          June 5, 2014 at 8:46 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          The End is nigh!!

          The ancient prophecies are being fulfilled RIGHT NOW!
          "The age of evil has come to the world . Everyone steals and hoards great wealth, and sensual sin rules the day. The end of the world is at hand – yet men are hard and cruel, and listen not to the doom that is coming . No one heeds the cries of his neighbour, or lifts a hand to save."

          Repent and give your obedience to the King of Gods!
          Ragnarok cometh and only the mercy of Odin can save you!

          June 5, 2014 at 8:58 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          your pitiful attempt at revisionist prophesy isn't going to pass muster since those scrawlings are all recent. try something more convincing.

          June 5, 2014 at 9:22 am |
        • awanderingscot

          it's also easy to spot bogus norse prose and although the first recorded is from around 1000AD, virtually none was translated to english until recent times.

          June 5, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Scot
          Christians have been waiting on tenterhooks for Doomsday for 2,000 years.
          I'm gonna hedge my bets until I see the amphibious 7 headed, 10 horned, bear pawed monster climb out of the water.

          Back in the mid 2nd century, Montanus convinced his followers that the 2nd coming would be during their lifetimes. Despite Christ's no show and the continuation of civilization, somehow the cult lasted for centuries.
          A couple of hundred years later, a North African Christian tribe known as the Donatists tried the same scam, saying everything would collapse in 380CE.
          Around the same time, St. Martin of Tours declared that the anti-Christ had already been born and was on His way to gaining power over the world.
          A mathematical Christian group called the Lotharingians were quite certain The End would be in 970CE becuase in that year, the Annunciation and Good Friday were on the same day.
          Pope Innocent III prophesied the 2nd Coming for 666 years after the rise of Islam., the year 1284.
          Archdeacon Militz of Kromeriz and an ascetic monk named Jean de Roquetaillade both said it would be around 1365CE.
          Melchior Hoffman, an Anabaptist prophet, predicted that the world would burn in 1533CE.
          The Fifth Monarchy Men, a guano insane English terrorist group, said the apocalyptic battle between Christ and Satan would happen in 1666CE.
          George Rapp said it would be September 15th, 1829.
          William Miller predicted October 22, 1844. Jesus’ failure to arrive is known as “The Great Disappointment”. Many of his disillusioned followers went on the found the 7th Day Adventist Church, who are still patiently awaiting His return.
          Charles Russell, 1st President of the Watchtower Society told his fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus would be back in 1874.
          Rudolf Steiner maintained that from 1930 onwards, Jesus would grant certain people psychic powers to enable them to witness his presence in the “etheric plane”.
          Herbert Armstrong, Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God said 1975.
          Bill Maupin managed to convince his followers to sell all of their worldly goods in preparation for Jesus’ return on June 28th, 1981.
          Benjamin Crème stated that on June 21st, 1982 Christ would make a worldwide television announcement.
          Mark Blitz, Pastor of El Shaddai Ministries says it would be September 30th, 2008
          Jerry Falwell said it’d happen between 1999 and 2009.
          Harold Camping told everyone that the Rapture would happen May 21, 2011 after failing in his first predicted date of 1994.

          “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”
          —1 John 2:18

          The "last hour" – give or take 1.7 million hours.

          June 5, 2014 at 9:46 am |
    • SeaVik

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL religions based on fairy tales? Doesn't that make them ALL "squishy"? I don't understand how any of them are any better than the rest.

      June 4, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
    • ausphor

      Topherism the condition that allows a person to reject all knowledge that does not agree with that persons a priori beliefs. (also known as Philioidiotism) You can never convince these born again types that they could possibly be wrong, they are the blessed people even their fellow Christians do not measure up to their holier than thou standards.

      June 4, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
1 2 3
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.