Topic: The Religion Thread

[barrister]

 
‘There was money, why was shrine not built?’
By Daxim L. Lucas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
1:59 am | Thursday, March 6th, 2014

... But even after “pledged” donations were stripped out, the foundation that  handled the affairs of Suarez’s healing ministry appeared by no means destitute.

According to the SGV-prepared balanced sheet, the foundation had total assets  of P179.8 million at the end of 2009, representing an almost 19-percent increase  over the previous year’s asset base of P151.1 million.
Of this amount, P61.2 million was in the form of cash or cash equivalent,  while P49.5 million was booked as receivables.

The foundation also had property and equipment worth P59.4 million, “investment in subsidiaries” valued at P2 million and other assets worth P7.6  million.

Against these assets were accounts payable and other liabilities amounting to  P11.5 million, leaving the total fund balance of unencumbered equity at P168.3  million—an increase of almost 14 percent from its 2008 level.

... The former MMP Foundation board member, who spoke on condition of anonymity,  said the funds held by MMP Foundation consisted only of local donations.

“Maybe P50 million,” he said, when asked about the size of the local  donations. “That’s small. The bulk of the donations comes from US and Canada,  and is kept in US bank accounts.”

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582645/there-was-money-why-was-shrine-not-built

[Verbl Kint]

I met this priest at a "healing" session over 12 years ago and I immediately knew he was a sham.

As he was doing the pray-over, everyone had their eyes closed, but not me.  During the pray-over, he was actually also looking at a text message which just arrived. I guess multitasking can also be done during what could otherwise be a religious moment for a desperate man in need of healing.

[barrister]

Funny story. 

In my case, I don't need to see him texting during a pray-over to know he's a fraud. 

If he can really heal the sick, why doesn't he go to the public hospitals and heal all the patients there? 

There was once a cancer patient who died during Fr. Suarez's healing Mass.  The dead patient was brought to the hospital and was revived.  Against doctor's orders, the family brought the patient back home; 3 hours later, he finally died.

Even if it was the doctors who revived the patient, believers still called it a Fr. Suarez miracle:

No Lazarus: Man who came back to life dies
By Tonette Orejas, Beverly T. Natividad
Central Luzon Desk, Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:08:00 01/30/2008

CITY OF SAN FERNANDO -- He died and came back to life. But after three hours, he died again.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080130-115675/No-Lazarus-Man-who-came-back-to-life-dies

 

[Klaus Weasley]

a.) I've heard of cases of people momentarily coming back to life but dying again shortly afterwards.

b.) I've always smelled b.s. on Fr. Suarez. He always has these healing masses in Glorietta attended by thousands of people. Some even hanging around HOURS before it starts, registering in advance, etc. I honestly don't get this type of religious fervor. I don't buy it for one second.   

[barrister]

It's hard for me to blame the patients, since I can only imagine how desperate the seriously ill can be.

Yung mga devotees na wala namang sakit, ewan ko lang.  Yung "healer," makapal na talaga mukha niyan. 
 
 

[sirhc]

Like you guys, I'm also in agreement that this "healing priest" is nothing but a dud. syempre sasabihin niyan na hindi mag-wowork yung miracles niya sa lahat ng tao dahil depende yan sa pananampalataya nung person na ginagawaan niya ng "healing".

But can't help it but notice one inconsistency with the article. Per article, the man arrived the hospital zero-zero, no vitals. But the treatment they administered and consequently revived the man with was through electric shocks. But you see, you can't revive a heart to start pumping back again through a defibrillator, pwede pa siguro CPR.

Seems PDI is really out on a campaign to destroy father suarez..

[RU9]

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?
Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN

(CNN) The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science – and the world of religion.

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/

[leomarley]

Bill Maher Islam facts make Ben Affleck ANGRY!

Bad move Batfleck. Islam is not a race therefore Bill Maher and Sam Harris are not racist.

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/2014/10/muslim-facts-make-ben-affleck-angry/

[docelmo]

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?
Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN

(CNN) The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science – and the world of religion.

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/

From an article "Did God use the "Big Bang" to create the universe?

It is hard not to see the evidence for the Big Bang as a stunning example of where science and theology intersect. Astrophysicist Dr. Robert Jastrow phrased it this way in his book God and the Astronomers (New York, W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 116): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Why? Because, as Jastrow explained in a subsequent interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. . . .That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, pp. 15, 18).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/big-bang-theory.html#ixzz3GPMdGgFl

[leomarley]

once again, it is an opinion.

from the title of that CNN article:

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?
Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN

and from the disclaimer:

Leslie Wickman is director of the Center for Research in Science at Azusa Pacific University. Wickman has also been an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station programs. The views expressed in this column belong to Wickman.

notice the bold parts? opinions are not truths. they are simply just that, opinions.

Also, Dr. Robert Jastrow, a great contributor to Science, is a known Agnostic. The media outlet that interviewed him is Christianity Today. Christian writers tend to cherry pick quotes from people and take it out of context just to fit their beliefs. gotquestion.com is also a known Bible website. so their views may be deemed biased towards their own closed views.

In any case, if Dr. Jastrow did really say that in context here's an article refuting Dr. Robert Jastrow by Denis Dutton:

God and the Astronomers offers a short and very elementary survey of twentieth-century discoveries in cosmology, to which the author has added some startling and remarkably unsupported observations about the bearing those discoveries have on religion. “The details differ,” he writes, “but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” The details differ indeed: the author of Genesis speaks of the earth in the beginning as “being without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” He tells us that “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” before God said at last, “Let there be light.” These are profoundly enigmatic words. To suppose that they must amount to a description of the Big Bang is a speculation which goes far beyond the reasonable limits of evidence.

If, of course, the essential elements Jastrow sees as shared by Genesis and Big Bang theory are merely that both talk about some sort of cosmic beginning, then his thesis is hardly notable, though he might have pointed out that the creation myths of virtually all religions share that element too. If the Big Bang cosmology supports the Bible of the Jews and the Christians (except for those “differing details”), then it just as well stands as evidence for the creation stories of the Nepalese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Chinese, or the Hopi. The terms “beginning” and “creation,” applied to the context of cosmology, are notoriously tricky, and Professor Jastrow’s ambiguous use of them is indicative of a carelessness that prevails throughout his whole enterprise. The act of divine creation described in Genesis is a creation by God ex nihilo. The God of traditional theology did not rearrange or remake a previously existing world, he created one from nothing. Throughout most of God and the Astronomers, Jastrow talks about the Big Bang as though it constitutes this sort of unique and miraculous beginning.

http://denisdutton.com/jastrow_review.htm

[barrister]

From an article "Did God use the "Big Bang" to create the universe?

Does the Big Bang prove the bible's creation account?  Of course not.

Genesis says the earth was created before the stars.  The Big Bang Theory says stars appeared before the earth.

In Genesis, God created the earth, the seas, and plants before He created the sun, moon and stars.  Paano na ngayon yon?

[leomarley]

as usual, creationist takes scientists' account out of context and twist it to fit their belief and call it "evidence".

[dpogs]

Does the Big Bang prove the bible's creation account?  Of course not.

Genesis says the earth was created before the stars.  The Big Bang Theory says stars appeared before the earth.

In Genesis, God created the earth, the seas, and plants before He created the sun, moon and stars.  Paano na ngayon yon?

not only that... galing sa katawan (part of it) ni adam si eve... that defy the logic of evolution... paano nga naman yan... hindi na talaga scientific ang creation...

[leomarley]

not only that... galing sa katawan (part of it) ni adam si eve... that defy the logic of evolution... paano nga naman yan... hindi na talaga scientific ang creation...

it never really was.

[docelmo]

as usual, creationist takes scientists' account out of context and twist it to fit their belief and call it "evidence".

Same could be said with evolutionist,  by definition macro evolution has
Not been observed or even tested with absolute certainty.
Sabi nga, Evolution is the Creation Theory  for Atheists.

[leomarley]

Same could be said with evolutionist,  by definition macro evolution has
Not been observed or even tested with absolute certainty.
Sabi nga, Evolution is the Creation Theory  for Atheists.

No, the same could not be said because it is inherent in Creationists.

Clearly you do not understand Evolution. It is both fact AND theory. The theory is on how species evolved. You should ratther say The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The theory there is "by Natural Selection" not Evolution. It is like saying that gravity is a theory.

Regarding your argument on Macro Evolution, here's a video for you to watch and, more importantly, to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo&list=PLsmqeqKj7M-rZTTXNXuL07poGP5B6TKKu

Also, if you want to continue this discussion, maybe you should point out your arguments for creationism on the other thread not here.

[barrister]

No, the same could not be said because it is inherent in Creationists.

Clearly you do not understand Evolution. It is both fact AND theory. The theory is on how species evolved. You should ratther say The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The theory there is "by Natural Selection" not Evolution. It is like saying that gravity is a theory.

Gravity is both fact and theory.  But evolution is theory, not fact.
 
My old post on the Creation or Evolution thread:
 

This is a common evolutionist argument --- That evolution is both a theory and a fact, just like gravity is both a theory and a fact.

I vehemently disagree.

It is true that gravity is both a fact and a theory.  In gravity:
(a) The fact is the observable force between two masses; and
(b) The theory is the attempt to explain how that observable force operates.

But in evolution:
(a) The so-called "fact" of evolution is mere speculation, not an observable fact; and
(b) Therefore, the theory is without any proper basis, because it attempts to explain a speculation, not an observable fact.

Therefore, that is the big difference between gravity and evolution ---- one is an observable fact; the other is not.

 
=======================================

 

Regarding your argument on Macro Evolution, here's a video for you to watch and, more importantly, to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo&list=PLsmqeqKj7M-rZTTXNXuL07poGP5B6TKKu

The problem with that video is that it starts with a defective premise --- That all of your ancestors are correctly represented on the stack of photos.  If the premise is false, then the conclusions are false.

First, prove that they are indeed the ancestors, then draw the conclusion.  Until the premise is proved, no proper conclusion based on said premise can be made.   
 

=======================================

 
Doc Elmo, just to be sure that we're still on the same page, I hope you haven't forgotten my old post:

... We're both creationists, but I do not believe it's possible to prove the existence of the Creator by either science or logic, because it's ultimately about faith.

Try to prove the existence of the Creator by science or logic and I'll be the first to dispute it.

[docelmo]

Sir Barrister, yup! i haven't forgotten...hehehe tagal na pala nun!

I would go even further to say since the "facts" claimed does not exist, then by definition of a "theory" being
suppose to be supported by evidence(facts)....Evolution is neither a theory!

[tony]

opinions are not truths. they are simply just that, opinions.

+10000000000......

[leomarley]

sir Barrister you just made my point.

in Gravity:

1. yes, it is a fact because you can observe it's effect by studying the fossils and DNA.
2. the theory in gravity is "Theory of Relativity" wherein gravity happens because of the bending of space and time.

in Evolution:

1. it is a fact because we can observe it.
2. the theory is The Theory of Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. the theory there is "BY NATURAL SELECTION", not Evolution itself.

it is as simple as that.

sample sentence:
1. Gravity - Gravity happens by bending space and time.
2. Evolution - Evolution happens by natural selection.

first part of the sentence talks about the facts while the second part of the sentence talks about how it happened (theory).

[leomarley]

regarding your last argument:

... We're both creationists, but I do not believe it's possible to prove the existence of the Creator by either science or logic, because it's ultimately about faith.

Try to prove the existence of the Creator by science or logic and I'll be the first to dispute it.

scientist could care less if they prove the Creator by science or logic. what they are trying to find out is how we came to be. to find answers to questions. to look for ways to make our lives better. only Creationists argue about who made us. Scientist only want to find out how it happened, why it happened and what caused it.

[barrister]

sir Barrister you just made my point.

in Gravity:

1. yes, it is a fact because you can observe it's effect by studying the fossils and DNA.
2. the theory in gravity is "Theory of Relativity" wherein gravity happens because of the bending of space and time.

in Evolution:

1. it is a fact because we can observe it.
2. the theory is The Theory of Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. the theory there is "BY NATURAL SELECTION", not Evolution itself.

it is as simple as that.

I think you have the two "number 1s" reversed.  Ok lang, it's clear enough.

We agree that gravity is an oobservable fact.  But we differ on the issue of whether or not evolution is an observable fact.

You say evolution is a fact because we can observe its effect by studying the fossils and DNA.  I disagree.  My view is that there is no evidence proving that evolution is a fact.

Please give us an example, so that the discussion will be more concrete.  An example of evidence showing that evolution is a fact.

Don't think that I'm beng argumentative.  I have an open mind, so it's possible that I can still change my views.

(PS:  Do you think we should transfer this to the Creation or Evolution thread?  Might be more appropriate there.)

[bumblebee]

^We can start with evolution of microbes since they are the simplest forms of life.

There's also mutation. Cross breeding can be considered as well.

[barrister]

^We can start with evolution of microbes since they are the simplest forms of life.

No evidence of evolution there.

Please be more specific.  If you want to discuss Richard Lenski's direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria, cite it and let's discuss it. 

Don't just state a conclusion without citing the basis for the conclusion.

 

There's also mutation. Cross breeding can be considered as well.

Mutation does not prove evolution.

Crossbreeding does not prove evolution.

[exaltedgamer]

I believe that you cannot create something out of nothing. I believe God organized elements that had already existed and that I believe is the process called in the Bible "The Creation".

[RU9]

What is the Evidence for Evolution?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

[bumblebee]

No evidence of evolution there.

Please be more specific.  If you want to discuss Richard Lenski's direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in E. coli (Escherichia coli) bacteria, cite it and let's discuss it. 

Don't just state a conclusion without citing the basis for the conclusion.

 
Mutation does not prove evolution.

Crossbreeding does not prove evolution.

You already know what I'm referring to. It's all there. No need to paste it here.

[Klaus Weasley]

[barrister]

You already know what I'm referring to. It's all there. No need to paste it here.

The discussion might benefit other readers. 

But if you feel there's no need for further discussion, that's OK. 

[barrister]

Maybe they also grow up to be delusional adults.

For example, Mother Teresa has long been exposed as one who received enormous amounts of donations, yet never spent the money to build a single hospital, preferring to simply pray for the sick instead of providing adequate health care.  What did Teresa do with the money?  Nobody knows.  At least she didn't spend it on herself.

It was Aroup Chatterjee who first exposed Mother Teresa, after working in one of Teresa's homes and later investigating her order's finances and practices.  In 1994, Christopher Hitchens produced a British TV documentary critical of Mother Teresa.  Hitchens later wrote a book, "The Missionary Position - Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice," then Chatterjee wrote his own book, "Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict."

Despite these exposés, the religious still continue to believe that Mother Teresa was a spotless figure of humanitarian work.  Clearly delusional.  Galit pa nga pag pinintasan si Mother Teresa... 

It's not surprising that Chatterjee and the late Hitchens are both atheists.  We need atheists to snap us out of our delusions once in a while...