Topic: The Religion Thread

[rexFi]

May ganito pala. Do also consider Mao Tse Dong and Stalin (both are Atheists).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

[barrister]

Good point. 

Also for their consideration:


"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then
what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within
acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed
the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.
When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…"
- Jeffrey Dahmer

Jeffrey Dahmer --- serial killer/cannibal/sex offender.  Confirmed atheist.  Charged with 15 counts of murder; found guilty on all counts; sentenced to 957 years imprisonment.  His murders involved rape, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism.

[leomarley]

^ you do good for goodness sake and not because someone told you you'd go to heaven. you do this for the betterment of Humanity.

[barrister]

^ you do good for goodness sake and not because someone told you you'd go to heaven. you do this for the betterment of Humanity.

I've discussed that before.  Maybe you haven't read my old posts:

 

Sir dpog's questions are not interrogative, they're rhetorical.

As I've repeatedly posted, conscience is the moral guide for non-believers (Rom. 2:12-16).  Is it really so hard to believe that atheists can have a conscience?

It's possible for an atheist to be charitable. 

Warren Buffett and Bill & Melinda Gates are reputedly atheists (they haven't directly confirmed it), yet they are genereous philantropists who have given billions to charity.

The atheist philantropist Robert Wilson once gave $22.5M to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program for needy inner-city students attending Roman Catholic schools:

Alms wide open
Self-avowed atheist ponies up $22.5M to help out Catholic schools
BY JENS DANA and DAVE GOLDINER
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Thursday, May 24th 2007, 4:00 AM

The wealthy philanthropist who gave $22.5 million to help Catholic schools doesn't think much of theology - in fact, he's an atheist.

But even though Robert Wilson doesn't believe in God, he does believe in giving poor kids a chance at a quality education.

"I am an atheist, [but] it's far more than about religion," said Robert Wilson, who was raised as an Episcopalian. "It's about getting an education. The donation has nothing to do with religion."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/24/2007-05-24_alms_wide_open-2.html

Some theists have an ulterior motive for charity --- they want to gain some brownie points in heaven  .  But when atheists give to charity, what is their motive if not a selfless concern for the well-being of others?

[dpogs]

^ you do good for goodness sake and not because someone told you you'd go to heaven. you do this for the betterment of Humanity.

"true" Christian do good not for goodness sake but because it is his/her nature
"religious" people do good because they want to go to heaven (or they may gain something in doing so)
"atheist" people do good hmmm... i have no idea (but by experience - to feel good)

[Nelson de Leon]

^ you do good for goodness sake and not because someone told you you'd go to heaven. you do this for the betterment of Humanity.

You do good not because you'd go to heaven but you do good because it's a result fo faith.

[barrister]

Hitler - estimated 12 million killed.

Mao - estimated 70 million killed.
Stalin - estimated 20 to 30 million killed.

Mao & Stalin --- atheists.


Atheism's Body Count - Ideology and Human Suffering
Atheism's Murder Rate: More than 250 Million Dead in the Past Century 

It is often argued by humanists and atheists that religion is responsible for most of the suffering caused by war in human history. It is often argued specifically that religious violence proves God does not exist.* While it is true that religious wars have been notoriously bloody, and waged so contrary to their founders' teachings, religion's followers have no exclusive corner on the market when it comes to creating suffering. Atheism it seems is at least as bad, if not worse. What follows is a brief, tongue-in-cheek, rebuttal to humanism's utopian hope for a peaceful world through the elimination of all religion.

... And while it is often said that Hitler was a Christian, the Nuremberg documents clearly reveal the heart of this ruthless man who believed in social Darwinism and had devised plans to completely eliminate Christianity after the Third Reich was firmly established.

http://scholarscorner.com/apologia/deathtoll.html

[leomarley]

You do good not because you'd go to heaven but you do good because it's a result fo faith.

not necessarily. you can do good because you're a humanist. that doesn't necessarily mean because it's a result in faith. as i've said in my last post, for the betterment of man.

[RU9]

Hitler - estimated 12 million killed.

Mao - estimated 70 million killed.
Stalin - estimated 20 to 30 million killed.

Mao & Stalin --- atheists.

Are you saying that the murders are the direct result of atheism?

[Frankthetank]

Guys question regarding the book of Revelation;

Should it be taken literally or symbolically?

In your own opinions?

[barrister]

Are you saying that the murders are the direct result of atheism?

I am disproving the notion that the religious are more murderous than the atheists.

The fact is that you can be murderous whether you're religious or not.

Guys question regarding the book of Revelation;

Should it be taken literally or symbolically?

In your own opinions?

Most parts symbolic, some parts literal.

 

[rexFi]

I am disproving the notion that the religious are more murderous than the atheists.

The fact is that you can be murderous whether you're religious or not.

Yup also one term to consider is "Fanaticism". Whatever worldview a person holds on to if it reaches this level then alot of stuff just goes "wrong".

Guys question regarding the book of Revelation;

Should it be taken literally or symbolically?

In your own opinions?

Yup some are literal and some are not. The main lesson here for me is, "He" is coming back, no one really knows when, just always be ready.

So "debating" about the correct interpretation of the book is cool but not a reason for division.

[barrister]

Yup some are literal and some are not. The main lesson here for me is, "He" is coming back, no one really knows when, just always be ready.

So "debating" about the correct interpretation of the book is cool but not a reason for division.

Simply knowing that He will return is not enough.  The book of Revelation provides sufficient details for those who can understand it.

Shoko Asahara declared himself "Christ" and "Lamb of God," and predicted a World War III that would end the world with a nuclear Armageddon.

Many others have claimed to be the returned Christ.  How do you know if a claim is true if all you know is that "He is coming back; no one really knows when; just always be ready"? 

He first came as a carpenter's son, and very few believed Him.  This time, will He have few believers again?   Malay mo totoo na pala.  How will you know?   



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

"true" Christian do good not for goodness sake but because it is his/her nature
"religious" people do good because they want to go to heaven (or they may gain something in doing so)
"atheist" people do good hmmm... i have no idea (but by experience - to feel good)

So it is possible for atheists to do good.

Doesn't the bible say that all atheists are corrupt and vile, and that there is no atheist who does good?

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalm 14:1)

Paano ngayon yan? 

[Nelson de Leon]

^ you do good for goodness sake and not because someone told you you'd go to heaven. you do this for the betterment of Humanity.

You do good not because you'd go to heaven but you do good because it's a result fo faith.

not necessarily. you can do good because you're a humanist. that doesn't necessarily mean because it's a result in faith. as i've said in my last post, for the betterment of man.

For christians, secondary lang ang betterment of man. Primarily you do good because it's a result of faith. Faith in God. With faith comes full trust in God that it will be for the betterment of man.

First: You should have faith in God.
Second: If you have complete faith in God, as i may partially quote dpogs:

but because it is his/her nature

it will be his/her nature to do good.
Third: Whether it will be for the betterment of man or not, since it is good, you put your trust in God.
Fourth: You pray and thank God that you were given an opportunity and used as an instrument to do good.
Last: You offer and surrender the glory to God.

 

[Timithekid]

"Man is inherently good"
- John Locke
   Philisopher

Can one still assume this to be true?  Does it still have enough basis for it to be assumed to be true?

[barrister]

"Man is inherently good"
- John Locke
   Philisopher

Can one still assume this to be true?  Does it still have enough basis for it to be assumed to be true?

The answer will depend on the standard you use for defining what is "good."

From the human point of view, the answer is almost always the same --- that man is inherently good.  That's what you see in poetry, literature, philosophy, etc. 

If your basis is the bible, the answer is different because the standard is very different.

The bible says "every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood;" (Gen. 8:21) so it is no wonder that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23)

[Timithekid]

So atty. basing it on that premise, when does the inclination change?

[sardaukar]

Faith healer parents avoid jail after son, 16, dies in horrible pain after they tried to 'pray away' his burst appendix

[dpogs]

Simply knowing that He will return is not enough.  The book of Revelation provides sufficient details for those who can understand it.

Shoko Asahara declared himself "Christ" and "Lamb of God," and predicted a World War III that would end the world with a nuclear Armageddon.

Many others have claimed to be the returned Christ.  How do you know if a claim is true if all you know is that "He is coming back; no one really knows when; just always be ready"? 

He first came as a carpenter's son, and very few believed Him.  This time, will He have few believers again?   Malay mo totoo na pala.  How will you know?   



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




So it is possible for atheists to do good. (Yup, in the eyes of man.)

Doesn't the bible say that all atheists are corrupt and vile, and that there is no atheist who does good?

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalm 14:1)

Paano ngayon yan? 

good before eyes of men vs good before eyes of God. ang isang hindi naniniwala sa Diyos ay maaaring maging mas mabait pa sa mga tunay na Kristiyano sa mata ng mga tao, ngunit sa mata ng Diyos lahat ng ginagawa nila mabuti man ay hindi ay maituturing na isang basahan lamang.

basing the standard of the Bible... all human (not only atheist) does no good.

[rexFi]

Simply knowing that He will return is not enough.  The book of Revelation provides sufficient details for those who can understand it.

Shoko Asahara declared himself "Christ" and "Lamb of God," and predicted a World War III that would end the world with a nuclear Armageddon.

Many others have claimed to be the returned Christ.  How do you know if a claim is true if all you know is that "He is coming back; no one really knows when; just always be ready"? 

He first came as a carpenter's son, and very few believed Him.  This time, will He have few believers again?   Malay mo totoo na pala.  How will you know?   

What you said already falls in "always being ready". E.g. I say Shoko Asahara STUDIED Revelations too much instead of just being ready. comparable to Manalo of INC, 4th Watch, The Adventist I heard even have a graph of the events (please confirm)

and it also falls under no one really knows when so if a guy like Shoko "says/predicted" when then he's simply lying.

You seemed to only tackled the first one but I have a 3 point framework regarding Eschatology applied in my Christian Walk.

Regarding the theological side of things, I have already forgotten my stance regarding Eschatology I remember being a believer of Pre-Wrath Rapture Tribulation thingie though but it doesn't matter to me now.

[Nelson de Leon]

re faith and deeds:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A14-26&version=NIV

James 2:14-26
New International Version (NIV)
Faith and Deeds

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

[Dilbert7]

Regarding the theological side of things, I have already forgotten my stance regarding Eschatology I remember being a believer of Pre-Wrath Rapture Tribulation thingie though but it doesn't matter to me now.

Indeed! 

A Christian (in the true sense of the word) in a close walk with His God is guided, not only by his own innate (spiritual) senses but also by higher power: the seal of the HS is with them!

[Dilbert7]

good before eyes of men vs good before eyes of God. ang isang hindi naniniwala sa Diyos ay maaaring maging mas mabait pa sa mga tunay na Kristiyano sa mata ng mga tao, ngunit sa mata ng Diyos lahat ng ginagawa nila mabuti man ay hindi ay maituturing na isang basahan lamang.

basing the standard of the Bible... all human (not only atheist) does no good.

The good in the eyes of God is on His level.

The goodness that emanates from human flesh is a contaminated thing (started by Adam). It is never acceptable to God's holiness.

The goodness that emanates from Christians (started by Jesus: uncontaminated by Adam's flesh) is acceptable to God: not because it emanates from man, but because it is done in the name of Christ, and is a byproduct of a Christian life. (Gal 2:20)

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

This is the reason nobody can brag in His front about any good works: (Eph 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[Dilbert7]

re faith and deeds:

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Maybe you can ask yourself if Abraham was able to do it all by himself?

= =

For if the inclination of human heart is all evil, how can he get the attention of the Holy one?
Romans 3:10 - As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

= = =

But this thing called belief (faith) is something we ought to consider: Nobody readily believes Christ - before His time, in His time, and in our time.

John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Romans 4:5 - But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

= = =

Thus, it is evident: an enabling power is present in the transformation
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

= = =

And the enabling power is actively at work:
Philippians 2:13 - For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

= = =

people do not see this power at work behind the scene.

what people see is the actual work of any professing believer.

the good works presented in James is an indicator ONLY to MAN - that a person has faith (belongs to God).

THE APPEARANCE OF GOOD WORK IS NEVER AN INDICATOR TO GOD THAT THAT MAN IS HIS CHILD! For God LOOks at the heart and every intent of man!

Show me the fruit, and I can tell you what tree it came from. But God knew the tree even without the fruit to speak for itself.

[barrister]

So atty. basing it on that premise, when does the inclination change?

Basing it on which premise?

"Good" as premised on man's concept, or "good" as premised on the bible's concept?



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

What you said already falls in "always being ready". E.g. I say Shoko Asahara STUDIED Revelations too much instead of just being ready. comparable to Manalo of INC, 4th Watch, The Adventist I heard even have a graph of the events (please confirm)

Events are outlined in Revelation.  So it's easy to make an outline of events based on the sequence of events stated in Revelation.

"Always being ready" without understanding the sequence of events in revelation is not good enough.  What if someone claims to be the returned Christ.  Do you believe him or not?  Even if you're ready, you still wouldn't be sure if the guy really is the Christ if you don't understand Revelation.

But if you understand Revelation, it's easy to tell whether or not one who claims to be the returned Christ is telling the truth.

Shoko Asahara did not "study Revelation too much" because Christian scripture is not his primary basis.  Aum Shinrikyo is a mixture of yoga, Hinduism, Christianity, and Nostradamus.

and it also falls under no one really knows when so if a guy like Shoko "says/predicted" when then he's simply lying.

Asahara did not give a date for the end of the world.

You seemed to only tackled the first one but I have a 3 point framework regarding Eschatology applied in my Christian Walk.

Regarding the theological side of things, I have already forgotten my stance regarding Eschatology I remember being a believer of Pre-Wrath Rapture Tribulation thingie though but it doesn't matter to me now.

Revelation is easy to understand.  Instead of simplifying it, youre making it more incomprehensible.

My beliefs are based on the bible, not on the ramblings of theologians.  That's why I do not use terms that are not found in the bible, such as "3 point framework" or "Pre-Wrath Rapture Tribulation."

Therefore, I do not use the word "rapture."  In Greek, it's "arpagisometha" (ἁρπαγησόμεθα); in English, it's "caught up" or "taken away."  Those are the biblical terms, not "rapture." 

"Pre-Wrath Rapture"?  It just gets worse and worse when you stray farther and farther away from the bible.
That's not biblical, that's Robert Van Kampen.  That's not scripture, that's 1990s fundamentalist Christian eschatology.

The basic rule in studying the bible is that scripture interprets itself.  Verses are explained by other verses.  They are not explained by unbiblical opinions of theologians or strict fundamentalist Christians like Van Kampen.

[barrister]

re faith and deeds:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A14-26&version=NIV

Justification by faith alone (sola fide) is so central to many Protestant denominations that nothing you say will make them admit they are wrong.

Kaya sayang lang oras mo sir.  Kahit pitpitin mo itlog niyan, hindi pa rin aamin yan na mali siya... 

Mabuti pa, tayo na lang ang mag-usap... 

Sabi ng bible, "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20).  Simpleng simple di ba?  Hindi puwedeng faith alone. 

Ngayon, bakit ang sabi sa Romans. 4:5 ay ganito:  "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."

How are the two verses reconciled?

[dpogs]

Justification by faith alone (sola fide) is so central to many Ptotestant denominations that nothing you say will make them admit they are wrong.

Kaya sayang lang oras mo sir.  Kahit pitpitin mo itlog niyan, hindi pa rin aamin yan na mali siya... 

Mabuti pa, tayo na lang ang mag-usap... 

Sabi ng bible, "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20).  Simpleng simple di ba?  Hindi puwedeng faith alone. 

Ngayon, bakit ang sabi sa Romans. 4:5 ay ganito:  "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."

How are the two verses reconciled?

What God requires is faith... not works.
What men requires is works... to prove our faith.

faith without works is dead ... speaks of our testimony towards men not to God.

true faith produces good works... what is our proof that a man is true son of God or a true Christian : by his works.

no one knows if that man is really a true believer, it is a personal relationship between him and God...
no one knows if sir barrister or me is truly a son of God, but by our testimony, by our works will determine if we really son of God in the eyes of men, but in the eyes of God it is by faith alone.

just like the man on the cross, nang maniwala siya kay Jesus. Jesus never ask the man to prove his faith by his work right on that spot.

when it comes to salvation... a man doesnt need to work out his salvation... he just need faith/trust God - God only needs faith in terms of salvation,
but when it comes to Christian living, a man need to work out his salvation - testimony.

salvation or being a Christian is a personal decision/relationship between believer and God. if a man claimed that he is a true christian then he must prove it by his works (before us/man), but before God, God only requires faith.

my take on faith and works.

[rexFi]

Events are outlined in Revelation.  So it's easy to make an outline of events based on the sequence of events stated in Revelation.

I did have "a belief" regarding that but its not important to me anymore.

"Always being ready" without understanding the sequence of events in revelation is not good enough.  What if someone claims to be the returned Christ.  Do you believe him or not?  Even if you're ready, you still wouldn't be sure if the guy really is the Christ if you don't understand Revelation.

But if you understand Revelation, it's easy to tell whether or not one who claims to be the returned Christ is telling the truth.

Well his/her Doctrine of Salvation is more important for me. Those "other" Christs usually say something else to be saved.

Shoko Asahara did not "study Revelation too much" because Christian scripture is not his primary basis.  Aum Shinrikyo is a mixture of yoga, Hinduism, Christianity, and Nostradamus.


Asahara did not give a date for the end of the world.

So what is his teaching for one to be Saved? I'm sure with a long talk with anyone who claims to be one regarding salvation, we would know already.

Revelation is easy to understand.  Instead of simplifying it, youre making it more incomprehensible.

Well I have an understanding of what Revelation teaches but its not important to me. It sure do looks like its important to you though. Go ahead then.

My beliefs are based on the bible, not on the ramblings of theologians.  That's why I do not use terms that are not found in the bible, such as "3 point framework" or "Pre-Wrath Rapture Tribulation."

These terms are just brought in to "label" a certain belief that has been drawn in Scriptures offcourse. Nothing to get upset about

The 3 point framework, I just coined the term myself.

Therefore, I do not use the word "rapture."  In Greek, it's "arpagisometha" (ἁρπαγησόμεθα); in English, it's "caught up" or "taken away."  Those are the biblical terms, not "rapture."

What's wrong in calling an event IN the bible with an outside term? E.g. Eucharist, The Communion, The Lord's Supper?

"Pre-Wrath Rapture"?  It just gets worse and worse when you stray farther and farther away from the bible.
That's not biblical, that's Robert Van Kampen.  That's not scripture, that's 1990s fundamentalist Christian eschatology.

Its just a name of a "theory" that every believer will be caught up "before" the... well I guess you know it already.

Is there no "label" for the Eschatology you believe in?

The basic rule in studying the bible is that scripture interprets itself.  Verses are explained by other verses.  They are not explained by unbiblical opinions of theologians or strict fundamentalist Christians like Van Kampen.

One cannot simply... isolate bible verses and draw a conclusion from it.   My "basic" for studying scripture is Chapter by Chapter. Context muna ng book etc.

Anyway I have no problem with anyone who has Zeal for this branch of theology. Go on ahead.

[rexFi]

Justification by faith alone (sola fide) is so central to many Protestant denominations that nothing you say will make them admit they are wrong.

Kaya sayang lang oras mo sir.  Kahit pitpitin mo itlog niyan, hindi pa rin aamin yan na mali siya... 

Mabuti pa, tayo na lang ang mag-usap... 

Last I checked, I also believe this

Sabi ng bible, "faith without works is dead" (James 2:20).  Simpleng simple di ba?  Hindi puwedeng faith alone. 

Ngayon, bakit ang sabi sa Romans. 4:5 ay ganito:  "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness."

How are the two verses reconciled?

Since you mentioned "Protestants", why not use the verse that they use for Sola Fide? Reconcile James with Ephesians 2:8-10.

Or is it already done through past post? katamad maghanap ehehe.

[bartender]

"Man is inherently good"
- John Locke
   Philisopher

Can one still assume this to be true?  Does it still have enough basis for it to be assumed to be true?

I think this is still true.  I remember a friend of mine saying before that if you threw a baby at Hitler, his first instinct will be to catch it, then maybe drop it later.

People do good because it's inherent to everyone, regardless of religion or faith.  Associating good with religion or faith is completely unfair to people who live unexposed to the concept of modern religion.