Glenn Beck is completely unhinged.

I wrote, "[Such natural disasters] have been occuring on Earth for billions of years before the human species arrived on the scene, and they will occur billions of years after we are gone." EverHopeful asked, "How do you know that for sure?" Gee, I though EVERYONE knew that.

Suppose a devout Hindu woman, loving, charitable to others of every race, faith and class, devoted mother and wife is preached to about the Christian gospel one day. She listens politely and although she appreciates shared sentiments about God’s love, it does not convince her to change her religion. She already accepts Hinduism as truth and fact is, she is spiritually fulfilled in her own faith ...more

Suppose a devout Hindu woman, loving, charitable to others of every race, faith and class, devoted mother and wife is preached to about the Christian gospel one day. She listens politely and although she appreciates shared sentiments about God’s love, it does not convince her to change her religion. She already accepts Hinduism as truth and fact is, she is spiritually fulfilled in her own faith and enjoys a relationship with God. Her religion gives her a feeling of hope, peace and well-being in her Hindu tradition. Unfortunately, one day she is kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed by a man who has done this terrible deed not only to her but many other women as well. According to many Christians, this poor Hindu woman will go to hell. It does not matter that she was a good person, law abiding, loving mother and faithful wife. It does not matter that she was hospitable, charitable and compassionate to those in need. All that matters is that she heard the gospel and did not convert to the Christian faith. So for the rest of eternity, this poor woman will be mercilessly tormented in hell, with no hope of redemption. All her good deeds and compassion are futile and forgotten.

Now imagine the man who has tortured and killed her and many other women gets arrested and is sentenced to death. While waiting to be executed in prison, a Christian preaches the gospel to him, for whatever reason, it moves him to accept Jesus as his savior and the criminal converts to Christianity. When he is executed, he goes to heaven for an eternity of bliss. For all eternity, he is rewarded with Divine happiness. All his cruelty and degradation of women in this lifetime is forgotten.

When forced to look at eternal reward and eternal punishment in such a visceral way, most Christians are stumped by the cruelty and injustice of what they hold to be true about the nature of God. Hell is supposed to fulfill every conceivable human nightmare, not even the worst Nazi concentration camp compares to it. Yet God will be sending the vast majority of human creation there. Who would want to worship and praise a God that would allow something like this? When faced with this dilemma, the Christian grasps for some way to get God off the hook. The most recent way of abdicating any responsibility on the part of a just and all-knowing, all-powerful Deity who is supposed to encompass all the higher qualities of universal love allowing such a barbaric place to exist where people are tortured for eternity, is to blame the human.less

When we talk to God, it's called PRAYER. When God talks to us, it's called SCHIZOPHRENIA.

A tornado destroys a church. On Easter Sunday. Is this a "Sign of the Times?" Is it God's way of saying He hates that church? Or is it God's way of testing the faith of the pashioners? It is none of these. Tornadoes happen. They are atmospheric phenomena. There is nothing remotely supernatural about them. Most of the time tornadoes touch down in sparsely populated areas, and we don't give them ...more

A tornado destroys a church. On Easter Sunday. Is this a "Sign of the Times?" Is it God's way of saying He hates that church? Or is it God's way of testing the faith of the pashioners?

It is none of these. Tornadoes happen. They are atmospheric phenomena. There is nothing remotely supernatural about them. Most of the time tornadoes touch down in sparsely populated areas, and we don't give them a second thought. But when tornadoes cause a huge loss of life, people suddenly wonder: "WHY???"

Same thing with earthquake, tsunamis, meteor impacts, and any other natural disaster. They happen. There is nothing supernatural about them. They have been occuring on Earth for billions of years before the human species arrived on the scene, and they will occur billions of years after we are gone.

On another website one pious gentleman responded to the catastrophe in Japan thusly: "This might be the best chance Christians have to make a real time meaningful witness to a nonChristian nation."

What a bunch of garbage. Rather than witnessing or praying, it would be a helluva lot more helpful if he would donate some of his personal wealth to disaster relief, or better yet help look for survivors.less

Ultimately it won't really matter which states approve marriage equality for Gay couples and which states deny it. The issue of marriage equality cannot be dealt with on a piecemeal, state-by-state basis, because the federal government has, though its own actions, made this a FEDERAL issue. Most of the legal benefits of marriage come from the federal government. There's also that pesky "Full Faith...more

Ultimately it won't really matter which states approve marriage equality for Gay couples and which states deny it. The issue of marriage equality cannot be dealt with on a piecemeal, state-by-state basis, because the federal government has, though its own actions, made this a FEDERAL issue. Most of the legal benefits of marriage come from the federal government. There's also that pesky "Full Faith & Credit" clause, which demands that if a couple is legally married in one state, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states.

I've heard it said countless times that marriage equality for Gay couples could be much easier achieved under a different term such as "civil unions." This may very well be true. Say that Gay couples are granted all the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage, at ALL levels of government, under the term "civil unions." Gay couples would be provided equal protection as demanded under the 14th Amendment, and social and religious conservatives could keep the term "marriage" for themselves.

Yet at the end of the day, what have these social and religious conservative have won? They have a WORD, nothing more. Gay couples will be, for all intents and purposes, MARRIED, and we will refer to ourselves as MARRIED, and we will talk about where the WEDDING took place, etc. etc.

But if it's just the word "marriage" that gets your panties in a twist, fine. You can have it.less

Can you say "Mitt Romney?"

Harold Camping (www.wecanknow.com) says the "Rapture" will take place on May 21st, and Earth will be totally destroyed by October 21st. His followers say these events will start with a big earthquake on May 21st. The number of Camping's followers continues to grow. Many of them are quitting their jobs, getting rid of their possessions, and even abandoning their spouses and children so they can acc...more

Harold Camping (www.wecanknow.com) says the "Rapture" will take place on May 21st, and Earth will be totally destroyed by October 21st. His followers say these events will start with a big earthquake on May 21st. The number of Camping's followers continues to grow. Many of them are quitting their jobs, getting rid of their possessions, and even abandoning their spouses and children so they can accompany Camping on his nationwide caravan across the U.S. to warn everyone of this impending DOOM. And I have to wonder what they are going to think when May 22nd rolls around, and NOTHING has happened? I hope Harold Camping makes himself scarce, because he's going to have a lot of very angry people looking for him.less

On the LOATHSOME SCALE, Fred Phelps and his clan at the Westboro Baptist Church are about as far beyond the pale as anyone can get ... but until they are proved to be inciting violence or causing harm, their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Jerry Falwell said that Gays were responsible for 9/11; Pat Robertson said that God might hurl a meteor at Disneyworld because of "Gay Days;" and Phel...more

On the LOATHSOME SCALE, Fred Phelps and his clan at the Westboro Baptist Church are about as far beyond the pale as anyone can get ... but until they are proved to be inciting violence or causing harm, their speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Jerry Falwell said that Gays were responsible for 9/11; Pat Robertson said that God might hurl a meteor at Disneyworld because of "Gay Days;" and Phelps & Co. insist that God hates ... well, just about everyone. Ugly, hateful words that do nothing but reflect poorly on the speakers, but protected speech nonetheless. The Supreme Court made the right decision.less

Does it involve some kind of hypnosis or brain implant?

Monique write, "There's quite a few non-believers reading these articles and being very passionate about why they don't believe. I never go on Athiest websites to find out what the athiests are saying about Christianity." When people consider their faith and their relationship with God a purely personal matter, everything is fine. It's when evangelicals go all "Great Commission" on us that pr...more

Monique write, "There's quite a few non-believers reading these articles and being very passionate about why they don't believe. I never go on Athiest websites to find out what the athiests are saying about Christianity."

When people consider their faith and their relationship with God a purely personal matter, everything is fine. It's when evangelicals go all "Great Commission" on us that problems arise. It's really more trouble than it's worth.less

"You can be moral and good without God... but you will wind up in Hell after you die." Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Suppose a devout Hindu woman, loving, charitable to others of every race, faith and class, devoted mother and wife is preached to about the Christian gospel one day. She listens politely and although she appreciates shared sentiments about God’s love, it does not convince...more

"You can be moral and good without God... but you will wind up in Hell after you die."

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Suppose a devout Hindu woman, loving, charitable to others of every race, faith and class, devoted mother and wife is preached to about the Christian gospel one day. She listens politely and although she appreciates shared sentiments about God’s love, it does not convince her to change her religion. She already accepts Hinduism as truth and fact is, she is spiritually fulfilled in her own faith and enjoys a relationship with God. Her religion gives her a feeling of hope, peace and well-being in her Hindu tradition. Unfortunately, one day she is kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed by a man who has done this terrible deed not only to her but many other women as well. According to many Christians, this poor Hindu woman will go to Hell. It does not matter that she was a good person, law abiding, loving mother and faithful wife. It does not matter that she was hospitable, charitable and compassionate to those in need. All that matters is that she heard the gospel and did not convert to the Christian faith. So for the rest of eternity, this poor woman will be mercilessly tormented in Hell, with no hope of redemption. All her good deeds and compassion are futile and forgotten.

Now imagine the man who has tortured and killed her and many other women gets arrested and is sentenced to death. While waiting to be executed in prison, a Christian preaches the gospel to him, for whatever reason, it moves him to accept Jesus as his savior and the criminal converts to Christianity. When he is executed, he goes to Heaven for an eternity of bliss. For all eternity, he is rewarded with Divine happiness. All his cruelty and degradation of women in this lifetime is forgotten.

Yes, it makes all the sense in the world.less

My ever-so-sanctimonious Catholic brother once told me that if he was an atheist, if he didn't believe in Heaven or Hell, he didn't think he would have any problem pushing a person off a cliff to his death. I told him he was full of it.

The Golden Rule says to treat others as you would have them treat you. This is not a Christian worldview ... or a Jewish or Muslim or Pagan worldview. This is the moral and ethical basis of a civilized people. I personally don't need to incorporate some invisible "God" into that, and I do not require heaven or hell to bribe or scare me into acting decently, thank you very much.

Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment. I think the reason marriage equality for Ga...more

Why is it that it's perfectly acceptable, even admirable, for Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples to date, get engaged, get married, and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing ... but for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

I think the reason marriage equality for Gay couples is gaining acceptance is because more people are making better value judgments. What sense is there in encouraging monogamy and commitment for Straight people, while telling Gay people that they must resign themselves to lives of loneliness? Is it any wonder, after hearing such messages for so long, that so many young Gay people end up taking their own lives?

Dr. Mohler, perhaps the best thing for you to do when it comes to your dealings with Gay individuals and couples is simply to obey The Golden Rule: Treat them as you yourself would wish to be treated.less

Imagine if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been put up for a popular vote in the Deep South. I think we know how THAT would've turned out.

If part of the President's job is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachuse...more

If part of the President's job is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.

Face it: There's no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.less

If part of the President's job is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachuse...more

If part of the President's job is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.

Face it: There's no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.less

If part of the President's job is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachuse...more

If part of the President's job is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause.

Face it: There's no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want. Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.

This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.less

There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Am...more

There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, such couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause. Face it: There is no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.less