Topic: The Religion Thread

[oReOsHaKe]

Kaya hindi rin natin masasabing imposible ang alien life forms.

 

Possible na meron alien life forms.. Never proven na wala, never proven na meron.. I mean the universe is such a humongous place for just us to be living in it alone..

[tigkal]

Has anyone here watched ANCIENT ALIENS? The show, which is based on science, facts, history with cross reference to the Bible is still lingering on my mind now. Some of the features make a lot of sense.

Try to read books by Zecharia Sitchin.The Twelfth Planet or Genesis Revisited. His basis are the ancient Sumerian Texts. He links ancient sumerian texts to what is written in the bible. No conflicts, only additional explanation on what is on the bible. He does not question what is written on the bible. It is up to you to decide who is more convincing.. your church or the author..

[barrister]

Zecharia Sitchin attributes the creation of the ancient Sumerian culture to a race of extra-terrestrials from a planet beyond Neptune called Nibiru. He believed that Sumerian mythology reflects this view.

Sitchin bases his arguments on his personal interpretations of pre-Nubian and Sumerian texts, and the seal VA 243.


Cylinder Seal VA 243

Sitchin wrote that these ancient civilizations knew of a twelfth planet, when in fact they only knew five. Hundreds of Sumerian astronomical seals and calendars have been decoded and recorded, and the total count of planets on each seal has been five. Seal VA 243 has 12 dots that Sitchin identifies as planets. According to semitologist Michael S. Heiser, the so-called sun on Seal VA 243 is not the Sumerian symbol for the sun but is a star, and the dots are also stars. The symbol on seal VA 243 has no resemblance to the hundreds of documented Sumerian sun symbols.

The Myth of a 12th Planet:
A Brief Analysis of Cylinder Seal VA 243
Michael S. Heiser
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/VA243seal.pdf

Sitchin's hypotheses are not accepted by scientists and academics, who dismiss his work as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Sitchin's work has been criticized for flawed methodology and mistranslations of ancient texts as well as for incorrect astronomical and scientific claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin#Criticisms

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/index.html




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





Origin of the Species, From an Alien View
By COREY KILGANNON
Published: January 8, 2010  



Mr. Sitchin has been called silly before — by scientists, historians and archaeologists who dismiss his theories as pseudoscience and fault their underpinnings: his translations of ancient texts and his understanding of physics. And yet, he has a devoted following of readers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/nyregion/10alone.html

[thebat]

I would like to explore and tackle more on this alienthology. Interesting debates cooking. However, I think  someone should open a new thread (or is there one existing here?) for all alien discussions kse religion topic dito baka OT na tayong lahat  .

[BusyChild]

I would like to explore and tackle more on this alienthology. Interesting debates cooking. However, I think  someone should open a new thread (or is there one existing here?) for all alien discussions kse religion topic dito baka OT na tayong lahat  .

+1 big alien mothership 

I like alien talk too. Baka ma-OT dito.... Pls create one or please post link.

[reynold]

Here's a link, dito na lang pag-usapan ang tungkol sa mga Aliens

http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,142179.new.html#new

[barrister]

Sasabihin ko sana one thread na lang, kasi pag may separate threads for religion and alien origins, baka parehong thread ay mamatay agad.

Anyway, since may new thread na, let's see kung parehong tatagal.  Bakit sa small talk?  Baka magalit yung mga naniniwala sa aliens .
 
Bilib nga ako sa religion thread na ito, e.  Napaka-peaceful ng mga posters , samantalang pag religion ang topic, inaasahan na natin na natural lang ang away.

Noong 1970s nga, may religious radio program si Manolo Favis, panel discussion ng mga pastor ng iba-ibang religion, with Don Manolo as moderator.  Mainit talaga ang debate, yung mga pastor nagbabatuhan pa ng bibliya kung minsan ...  
    

[panzer]

 sir barrister it only shows how mature people here in pinoydvd that we respect each and everyones point of view regarding religion or alienthology .....   pero masarap din mag debate di ba? 

[reynold]

Oo nga atty., natatandaan ko pa yung ibang sekta (di ko na lang sasabihin yung pangalan)... ang dalas ko naririnig kung papano makipag-debate, kaya kami tahimik na lang kasi parang ayaw magpatalo... may kapitbahay kaming ganyan dati, iniiwasan tuloy namin makipag-kwentuhan sa kanya kasi palagi sya nagsisingit ng topic about religion

[barrister]

Oo nga atty., natatandaan ko pa yung ibang sekta (di ko na lang sasabihin yung pangalan)... ang dalas ko naririnig kung papano makipag-debate, kaya kami tahimik na lang kasi parang ayaw magpatalo...

Hindi nga talaga magpapatalo yon ... 

... may kapitbahay kaming ganyan dati, iniiwasan tuloy namin makipag-kwentuhan sa kanya kasi palagi sya nagsisingit ng topic about religion

OK yung umiwas ka na lang sir.  Iyon lang naman talaga ang remedyo doon, e. 

Avoid discussing politics and religion if you want to avoid an argument. 

Avoid those topics when you're at work.  Avoid those topics when you're on a date.

[thebat]

Is there a list of major religion sectors here (Philippines) with members percentage? Maybe we could post it here? I am also curios if the catholic religion is getting bigger or smaller in members. Sana meron comparison sa number of members dati and ngayon (for all sect).

[scifi-fan]

Taken from Nationmaster.com

Philippines:

Roman Catholic 80.9%,
Muslim 5%,
Evangelical 2.8%,
Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%,
Aglipayan 2%,
other Christian 4.5%,
other 1.8%,
unspecified 0.6%,
none 0.1%

[tigkal]

Alien talk, in relation with religion is still on topic. I read the Sitchiniswrong site.They are pointing out some inconsistencies on the assumption of Sitchin.Whether who is wrong or right is not important to me.  What I am amazed by the writings is the explanation of the science and reason behind the creation of man, about man being a hybrid, that a hybrid man and woman cannot mate and have children.That is why a woman clone is necessary(Eve) for man to reproduce by themselves. Gold, being of value before and even today but has no mechanical properties to be of value.. and other scientific and logical explanation. Best read with an open mind.

I always wonder what we could accomplish if we have no knowledge between good and evil. Some would say that this is carnal knowledge. But this knowledge would make us like God, so this must be intelligence, not carnal knowledge.

[bumblebee]

Good and evil? Hmmm. The universe will move on without them.

[barrister]

I always wonder what we could accomplish if we have no knowledge between good and evil. Some would say that this is carnal knowledge. But this knowledge would make us like God, so this must be intelligence, not carnal knowledge.

First, it wouldn't make us like God.  The one who said that was the serpent.  It's actually a lie, or a half-truth at most.  Here's the account:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  (Gen. 3:1-5)

At the time, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil.  The serpent told her a clever half-truth --- if she ate the fruit, she would be like God, knowing good and evil, and that she wouldn't die.

It's true that Eve would "become like God, knowing good and evil", but the serpent did not clarify that she would become like God only with respect to "knowing good and evil", but she still wouldn't become like God in other aspects.

It's true that Eve didn't die on the same day that she ate the fruit.  But the serpent didn't clarify that when Eve eats the fruit, she would lose her immortality on the same day.

Second, it's not carnal knowledge.

Third, it's not intelligence.  

The correct interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil" is simpler than that.

[ezkerovalatzky]

Can the belief in evolution and belief in God unite in a person?

[bumblebee]

In my case, yeah.

Science and God.

[dpogs]

Can the belief in evolution and belief in God unite in a person?

Science and God... YES.


Evolution and God... NO.


for me... evolution is not science... it is religion...

[ezkerovalatzky]

I'm still backreading and I'm on page 2 pa lang.

Somebody mentioned here that it didn't rain on earth prior to the Great Flood.

I am thinking that statement has something to do with the fact that rainbows presumably are created after the flood lang.

Now, my question is, can we really believe there're no rainbows before the flood. isn't it that rainbows are manifestations of the color spectrum present in light and diffused by moisture in the air?

or does the rainbow statement in the bible not literal?

[oweidah]

Sasabihin ko sana one thread na lang, kasi pag may separate threads for religion and alien origins, baka parehong thread ay mamatay agad.

Anyway, since may new thread na, let's see kung parehong tatagal.  Bakit sa small talk?  Baka magalit yung mga naniniwala sa aliens .
 
Bilib nga ako sa religion thread na ito, e.  Napaka-peaceful ng mga posters , samantalang pag religion ang topic, inaasahan na natin na natural lang ang away.

Noong 1970s nga, may religious radio program si Manolo Favis, panel discussion ng mga pastor ng iba-ibang religion, with Don Manolo as moderator.  Mainit talaga ang debate, yung mga pastor nagbabatuhan pa ng bibliya kung minsan ...  
    

koya di ba si damian sotto kasabayan ni don manoloFavis?
http://thoughtstoprovokeyourthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/12/damian-sotto.html
miss ko makinig sa mga nagdedebate ukol sa relihiyon sa plaza miranda at luneta  

[barrister]

Hindi ko na inabot si Ka Damian Sotto, e.  Naririnig ko lang sa kuwento ng mga matatanda.

Pero hindi magkasabayan yon.  

Si Ka Damian, sikat na sikat noong 1960s, pero matagal na siyang patay.

Si Don Manolo, buhay na buhay pa, mid-70s yata nag-umpisa, at may religious radio program pa rin hanggang ngayon sa DZBB 594 (a GMA radio station on AM).

Delikado rin daw ang religious debate sa Plaza Miranda noong dekada 60, nagkakaroon din daw ng riot paminsan-minsan.

Pag napapahiya ang isang side, kinakantiyawan ng kabila.  Siyempre, yung audience puro miyembro ng mga sekta na nagdedebate, e di pag nagka-asaran, bugbugan na ang susunod ...  

  

[tigkal]

First, it wouldn't make us like God.  The one who said that was the serpent.  It's actually a lie, or a half-truth at most.  Here's the account:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  (Gen. 3:1-5)

At the time, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil.  The serpent told her a clever half-truth --- if she ate the fruit, she would be like God, knowing good and evil, and that she wouldn't die.

It's true that Eve would "become like God, knowing good and evil", but the serpent did not clarify that she would become like God only with respect to "knowing good and evil", but she still wouldn't become like God in other aspects.

It's true that Eve didn't die on the same day that she ate the fruit.  But the serpent didn't clarify that when Eve eats the fruit, she would lose her immortality on the same day.

Second, it's not carnal knowledge.

Third, it's not intelligence.  

The correct interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil" is simpler than that.

God said they will die, they did not immediately die. When the serpent said that they will gain Knowledge, they did in an instant. God knew they ate the fruit because they covered themselves and were ashamed of being naked. That was the only time He knew they ate the fruit.  I cannot imagine all of us being naked and not knowing whether joining pdvd is good or evil

[barrister]

I'm still backreading and I'm on page 2 pa lang.

Somebody mentioned here that it didn't rain on earth prior to the Great Flood.

I am thinking that statement has something to do with the fact that rainbows presumably are created after the flood lang.

Now, my question is, can we really believe there're no rainbows before the flood. isn't it that rainbows are manifestations of the color spectrum present in light and diffused by moisture in the air?

or does the rainbow statement in the bible not literal?

First, let me explain why some people think it didn't rain prior to the flood.

Before God created Adam, the bible states in Genesis 2:5–7:

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.  6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Then after Noah's flood, the bible says in Genesis 9:12-13:

12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.


From those passages, here's what they conclude:

- God created the rainbow after the flood.  There were no rainbows before the flood.
 
- Rainbows are caused by sunlight passing through rain droplets.  If there was no rainbow prior to the flood, it's because there was no rain prior to the flood.

- That's why Genesis 2:5-6 says it was not rain but a mist that watered the ground.



Their view is not supported by scripture.

It's true that there was a time when there was no rain and only a mist watered the ground.  But when was that time?  Before the creation of Adam.  The bible does not say that the mist-and-no-rain situation continued after Adam was created, so there's no logical basis to assume that there was no rain until the time of Noah's flood.

So if rain existed after Adam was created, then rainbows must have existed even before the flood?

Yes, why not.  Rain and sunlight produce rainbows.  Since rain and sunlight existed before the flood, then rainbows likewise existed before the flood.  

The bible does not say that the first rainbow was created after the flood.  It does not say that God had never set a rainbow in the clouds before that time.  It only says that the rainbow that He set in the clouds after the rain became the token of His covenant.

Therefore, the rainbow God set after the flood was not the first rainbow ever created.  Rather, it was merely the first time that God made the rainbow a token of His covenant.

[ezkerovalatzky]

First, let me explain why some people think it didn't rain prior to the flood.

Before God created Adam, the bible states in Genesis 2:5–7:

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.  6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Then after Noah's flood, the bible says in Genesis 9:12-13:

12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.


From those passages, here's what they conclude:

- God created the rainbow after the flood.  There were no rainbows before the flood.
 
- Rainbows are caused by sunlight passing through rain droplets.  If there was no rainbow prior to the flood, it's because there was no rain prior to the flood.

- That's why Genesis 2:5-6 says it was not rain but a mist that watered the ground.



Their view is not supported by scripture.

It's true that there was a time when there was no rain and only a mist watered the ground.  But when was that time?  Before the creation of Adam.  The bible does not say that the mist-and-no-rain situation continued after Adam was created, so there's no logical basis to assume that there was no rain until the time of Noah's flood.

So if rain existed after Adam was created, then rainbows must have existed even before the flood?

Yes, why not.  Rain and sunlight cause produce rainbows.  Since rain and sunlight existed before the flood, then rainbows likewsie existed before the flood.  

The bible does not say that the first rainbow was created after the flood.  It does not say that God had never set a rainbow in the cloud before that time.  It only says that the rainbow that He set in the clouds after the rain became the token of His covenant.

Therefore, the rainbow God set after the flood was not the first rainbow ever created.  Rather, it was merely the first time that God made the rainbow a token of His covenant.

Very nice.

Sir, how about the part in the creation story where God said Let there be light.... and then after which He created the Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies.

Isn't it that these celestial bodies are the source of light that we know. Sun during the day and night (reflected by the moon).

What light did God create at first which seemed to be different from "the" light we know now?

[barrister]

Very nice.

Sir, how about the part in the creation story where God said Let there be light.... and then after which He created the Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies.

Isn't it that these celestial bodies are the source of light that we know. Sun during the day and night (reflected by the moon).

What light did God create at first which seemed to be different from "the" light we know now?

That's a good observation.  

The bible is complete in all matters necessary for salvation.  The bible does not contain any detailed information about what the initial light was, because that information is not necessary for our salvation.

All we are given is that on the first day, God created light; then it was only on the fourth day that He created the sun, moon, etc., and "set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth."

Logically, the light on the first day of creation must have been a temporary light that ceased to exist as soon as the lights "in the firmament of the heaven" (our lights today) were created on the fourth day.

What kind of light was the first-day light and how did it look like?  Nobody knows the answer to that question.

That's part of the discipline in studying the bible ---  Don't attempt to add any information that is not clearly stated in scripture.

[barrister]

God said they will die, they did not immediately die. When the serpent said that they will gain Knowledge, they did in an instant.

God did not merely say they "will die" without specifying when they would die.  

On the contrary, God specifically said Adam will "surely die" "in the day" that Adam eats the fruit.  But Adam did not die on the same day that he ate the fruit.  Why not?  



Here's the King James Version:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen. 2:17)


word-for-word translation (see Gen. 2:17):
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf


with Strong's Numbers (see Gen. 2:17):

But of the tree4480, 6086 of the knowledge1847 of good2896 and evil,7451 thou shalt not3808 eat398 of4480 it: for3588 in the day3117 that thou eatest398 thereof4480 thou shalt surely die.4191, 4191

http://www.strongs-bible.com/1-Strongs-01.htm#c02

God knew they ate the fruit because they covered themselves and were ashamed of being naked. That was the only time He knew they ate the fruit.

God doesn't have to see that Adam and Eve covered themselves before God can know that they had sinned.

God knew they ate the fruit as soon as they ate fruit, simply because nothing can be hidden from God, who "knoweth all things."

Otherwise, the following verses would not make sense:


13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb. 4:13)

24 for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (Job 28:24)

20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. (1 Jn. 3:20)

2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. 3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. 4 Before a word is on my tongue you, LORD, know it completely. 5 You hem me in behind and before, and you lay your hand upon me. 6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain. 7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. 11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” 12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you. (Psalm 139:2-12)



Now, if God already knew beforehand that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, why did God call out to Adam, “Where are you?"   Why did God ask Adam, "Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"  Why did God ask Eve, "What is this you have done?"

The answers are really simple.

[Armz316]

Guys pls. correct me if i'm wrong anytime okay. What can you guys say about the Satanic Bible. Someone told me it hit Phil.shores in the ealry 90's and it's in a library of one of the best schools in Metro Manila. The one who made it is the author of books for kids. This gives me the creeps....

And the 2nd, thick book i saw is "There is no God because man created God." Something like that. Just asking you guys.
 

[dpogs]

Adam and EVe (and the rest of humanity) died instantly - spiritual death.

[barrister]

Adam and EVe (and the rest of humanity) died instantly - spiritual death.

No, that's not it.  Adam, Eve, the serpent and God understood each other clearly.  They were all talking about physical death.

[barrister]

Guys pls. correct me if i'm wrong anytime okay. What can you guys say about the Satanic Bible. Someone told me it hit Phil.shores in the ealry 90's and it's in a library of one of the best schools in Metro Manila. The one who made it is the author of books for kids. This gives me the creeps....

The Satanic Bible is a book written by Anton LaVey, published in 1969.  It contains the principles of LaVeyan Satanism.

Anton LaVey is not an author of children's books.  LaVey (1930 – 1997) was a writer, occultist and musician; and was the founder of LaVeyan Satanism (the "Church of Satan").


Anton LaVey

The Satanic Bible is not some rare, mysterious book.  If you want, you can order one from Amazon   :


http://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Bible-Anton-Szandor-Lavey/dp/0380015390


Yung Church of Satan, may website pa nga, e --- http://www.churchofsatan.com/  They're looking for a few outstanding individuals ...  

It's a registered religion in the US, and I've never heard anything about their Church being linked to any crime, violent or otherwise.  

And the 2nd, thick book i saw is "There is no God because man created God." Something like that. Just asking you guys.

There are many books on that topic.  For example:

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Created-God-Human-Invention/dp/0745955436
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Created-God-George-Mynchenberg/dp/1583488979
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6505821-then-man-created-god