Post by: firewired on Jul 02, 2011 at 02:03 PM
- Khalil Gibran
Please limit all discussions about religion and religious issues to this thread. Fair warning: we will not tolerate prejudice in any form regardless of creed. Doesn't matter if you cite scripture, paraphrase your pastor, reference biased studies or surveys - if it offends, it's out.
Post by: indie boi on Jul 03, 2011 at 07:10 PM
I sincerely and genuinely would love to see a grown-up discussion of religion here.
Post by: Dan on Jul 03, 2011 at 09:28 PM
Post deleted for veering into flamebait territory. We'd like discourage any posts that may be construed as offensive by anyone, conservative and liberal alike.
This thread's legs will be dependent on the needs of the faithful to have an intelligent discussion on their faith. If this thread dies as a result of a lack of that need, then so be it. Let's not take it as a signal to bait them.
Thanks for understanding.
Post by: Dan on Jul 03, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Post by: Verbl Kint on Jul 05, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Can't wait to watch it! ;)
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 05, 2011 at 03:27 PM
Aaron's serpent was actually a Nile croc?
Beasts of the Bible (http://beastsofthebible.com/)
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 05, 2011 at 03:30 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 05, 2011 at 04:04 PM
The serpent at Eden was actually a salamander?
Aaron's serpent was actually a Nile croc?
Beasts of the Bible (http://beastsofthebible.com/)
sa serpent galing ang snake??? kasi after icurse ang serpent... nawalan na siya ng mga paa eh...
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 05, 2011 at 04:14 PM
Post by: oweidah on Jul 05, 2011 at 04:32 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 05, 2011 at 05:35 PM
Aba ewan ;D What do you think?
i mean... sa salamander pala galing ang snake.. kasi after the curse... gumapang na ang serpent... nawalan na siya ng paa...
Post by: dpogs on Jul 05, 2011 at 05:36 PM
bakit epol ang forbidden fruit? saan nga ba ang garden of eden?
hindi specifically na 'epol' ang forbidden fruit...
nakalagay lang ay 'forbidden fruit'... siguro kung mga filipino ang nagpauso ng kwento... malamang lamang ang forbidden fruit ay 'santol'.
Post by: barrister on Jul 05, 2011 at 05:37 PM
bakit epol ang forbidden fruit? saan nga ba ang garden of eden?
Hindi epol ang forbidden fruit. It's called the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It has no other name; nobody knows what it looks like.
The garden of Eden was probably located somewhere in the Middle East. Nobody knows its specific location.
i mean... sa salamander pala galing ang snake.. kasi after the curse... gumapang na ang serpent... nawalan na siya ng paa...
Hindi ganon yon sir.
Kung yung salamander naging snake, e di dapat lahat snake na. Bakit may salamander pa rin hanggang ngayon? Akala ko ba naging snake na?
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 05, 2011 at 05:47 PM
Sir, may question ako, nasaan yung The Ark of The Covenant? Yung totoo ha... hindi yung sa story ng Indiana Jones... ;D
Post by: Dan on Jul 05, 2011 at 06:04 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 05, 2011 at 06:22 PM
Hindi ganon yon sir.
Kung yung salamander naging snake, e di dapat lahat snake na. Bakit may salamander pa rin hanggang ngayon? Akala ko ba naging snake na?
marami pa namang species ng salamander siguro that time... siguro isang klase lang ng salamander ang serpent na iyon... na after the curse... isang klase lang ng salamander ang naging ahas... ewan ko lang... walang sinabi ang banal na kasulatan specifically... basta sinabi doon... 'na gagapang ang serpent'.
other than that.. di rin sinabi sa aklat na salamander ang serpent or may paa ito... isa lang ang malinaw... originally.. hindi gumagapang ang snake... gumapang lang ang snake... after the curse.
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 05, 2011 at 06:28 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 05, 2011 at 06:36 PM
Sir, may question ako, nasaan yung The Ark of The Covenant? Yung totoo ha... hindi yung sa story ng Indiana Jones... ;D
It's lost. Nobody knows where it is. It disappeared in 586 BC, when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple.
After it disappeared, naglitawan na ang mga legends.
How about the manna that Moses and the Israelites had ? Isn't it a real life plant or something?
There's no way to know that. All we know is that it's food that originated supernaturally.
I don't think it's a plant. According to Exodus 16:21, it melts in the heat of the sun.
And nasaan yung totoong Noah's Ark? Fake kasi yung video sa youtube na nakita na raw eh...
Wala na rin yon sir.
Ayaw siguro ng Diyos na makita pa yon. Sigurado kasing sasambahin yon pag nakita pa e. Pustahan tayo, kahit kapirasong kahoy ng Noah's Ark, pag nakita, sasambahin ng mga kulto.
Post by: Onkyo606 on Jul 05, 2011 at 06:38 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 05, 2011 at 06:40 PM
How about the manna that Moses and the Israelites had ? Isn't it a real life plant or something?
Try this :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna#Identifying_manna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manna#Identifying_manna)
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 05, 2011 at 06:45 PM
mukhang kailangan na ng bible scholar dito ah bibigat na ng tanong eh
Hehehe... sarap kasi magtanong ng mga ganyan eh... although you may not always get a definite answer...
Diba when you were a kid, madami ka din tanong about religion and faith, and until now wala pa rin definite answers even from your parents or teachers... and usually while growing up, and alam mo nalang is kung ano yung sa movies, like indiana jones and the raiders of the lost ark... ;)
Post by: leomarley on Jul 05, 2011 at 07:50 PM
and one more thing. the Bible described Eden as located between the river Tigris and Euphrates which is located at Iraq. so there you go.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 05, 2011 at 08:27 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 05, 2011 at 08:37 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 05, 2011 at 09:15 PM
i remember i watched this program on Discovery explaining the flood in Noah's Ark which they said happened in the Black Sea. they also explained how the 10 plagues happened in the Book of Genesis. And also scientist explained that serpents are descendants of a salamander-like reptile. the series was shown around April or May. sana ipalabas uli nila.
and one more thing. the Bible described Eden as located between the river Tigris and Euphrates which is located at Iraq. so there you go.
That's not good enough. I've never seen an accurate Discovery Channel program on biblical topics.
The theorized flood at the Black Sea is called "The Black Sea Deluge Theory", a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus Strait. The magnitude could not have been so great as to submerge the whole world.
Serpents are descendants of a salamander-like reptile? That still doesn't explain what the serpent at the Garden of Eden was, because it was something else.
On Genesis 3:14, God cursed the serpent:
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Remember, it was a talking serpent, cunning enough to deceive Eve. It was not cursed with muteness, so why can't serpents talk today?
It was cursed to walk on its belly and eat dust all the days of its life. Serpents today walk on their bellies, but they don't eat dust all the days of their lives.
Present-day Tigris is not just in Iraq, it flows through Turkey. Present-day Euphrates is not just in Iraq, it flows through Syria and Turkey up to the Shatt al-Arab.
Even then, 2 Peter 3:6 says the world was "deluged and destroyed" by the great flood of Noah's time.
Therefore, there's no way to know how the world's geography looked like before the great flood. And it's impossible to know whether today's rivers Tigris and Euphrates are the same Tigris and Euphrates prior to the great flood, or if they are new rivers in new locations arbitrarily named as such by the people who came after the great flood.
Post by: brainwashed on Jul 06, 2011 at 12:03 AM
...
Ayaw siguro ng Diyos na makita pa yon. Sigurado kasing sasambahin yon pag nakita pa e. Pustahan tayo, kahit kapirasong kahoy ng Noah's Ark, pag nakita, sasambahin ng mga kulto.
Isn't gambling a sin? ;D
At bawal ang magsugal di ba? ;D
malamang idiomatic expression lang yang pustahan na yan. hehe :D
Post by: indie boi on Jul 06, 2011 at 07:15 AM
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 06, 2011 at 07:29 AM
"They were all very important when we didn't know why the sun moved, why weather changed, why hurricanes occurred, or volcanoes happened", he continues. "Modern religion is the end trail of modern mythology. But there are people who interpret the Bible literally. Literally! I choose not to believe that's the way. And that's what makes America cool, you know?" - Bruce Willis
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Bruce_Willis_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg/466px-Bruce_Willis_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg)
Source - http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Bruce_Willis
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 06, 2011 at 10:26 AM
That's not good enough. I've never seen an accurate Discovery Channel program on biblical topics.
The theorized flood at the Black Sea is called "The Black Sea Deluge Theory", a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus Strait. The magnitude could not have been so great as to submerge the whole world.
...
That's the thing. The writer couldn't have known that the whole world was flooded. The flood may have been great enough for him to say it flooded his world. In this case, "The Black Sea Deluge Theory" is a sound theory.
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 10:29 AM
I think one of the crucial questions about reading the Bible is, do you really need to interpret it literally? I think this literal interpretation of the Bible is what's giving us a lot of trouble these days.
It depends. Some verses should be taken literally; others should be taken figuratively.
If the reader takes everything literally, he will not be able to understand correctly. And if the reader takes everything figuratively, he's won't be able to interpret correctly either.
The tricky part is knowing when to take it literally and when to take it figuratively.
Post by: Phobos on Jul 06, 2011 at 10:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI
President Bartlet, a devout Catholic, encounters a media personality known for criticizing gays on her radio show because the Bible calls them "an abomination."
The good stuff occurs in 1:08 onwards.
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 10:54 AM
That's the thing. The writer couldn't have known that the whole world was flooded. The flood may have been great enough for him to say it flooded his world. In this case, "The Black Sea Deluge Theory" is a sound theory.
Noah knew that the great flood covered the world because he was inspired by God.
Noah knew around 100 years beforehand that a great flood would come (Noah entered the ark when he was 600 years old; he died when he was 950 years old). If we believe that he had the power to know that, then it should be easier for us to believe that he knew the magnitude of the flood when it was already there.
The writer of Genesis was Moses. He knew when and where he was going to die because God told him so. In fact he wrote his own obituary:
5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said. 6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. 7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone. 8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over. (Deut. 34:5-8)
If the writer Moses had the power to know beforehand when and where he was going to die, then simply knowing the magnitude of the great flood would have been much easier for him.
The black sea deluge theory is far from sound. It's not generally accepted in the scientific community.
(From wikipedia:)
Countering the hypothesis of Ryan and Pitman are data collected prior to its publication by Ukrainian and Russian scientists including Valentina Yanko-Hombach, who claims that the water flow through the Bosporus repeatedly reversed direction over geological time depending on fluctuation in the levels of the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea. This contradicts the hypothesized catastrophic breakage of a Bosporus sill. Likewise, the water levels calculated by Yanko-Hombach differed widely from those hypothesized by Ryan and Pitman.
In 2007, a research anthology on the topic was published which makes available much of the earlier Russian research in English for the first time, and combines it with more recent scientific findings.
A five-year cross-disciplinary research project under the sponsorship of UNESCO and the International Union of Geological Sciences was conducted 2005–9.
A February 2009 article (National Georaphic) reported that the flooding might have been "quite mild".
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 06, 2011 at 11:11 AM
Noah knew that the great flood covered the world because he was inspired by God.
There have been great floods which inspired myths and legends. Noah may have been a real person but the magnitude of his flood seem more myth than fact.
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 11:18 AM
I admit that's it's pretty incredible to begin with.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 06, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Post by: leomarley on Jul 06, 2011 at 11:42 AM
I'm inclined to believe Noah existed, that he built an arc and survived a great flood.
+1
and if the flood indeed engulfed the entire world, it wouldn't only lasted 40 days. if that was the case, where did all that water have gone to? (unless there was divine intervention). i do believe a great flood had occurred but i don't think it engulfed the entire world.
Post by: indie boi on Jul 06, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 06, 2011 at 11:52 AM
Many of the myths and legends from different cultures all throughout the world contain some reference to a great flood. Some people have viewed this as circumstantial evidence that Noah's Great Flood did happen.
Because there have been many great floods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth)
Assuming Noah's flood is a one-time, big-time flood, any reference to a great flood would have Noah's name on it.
Post by: dyerds on Jul 06, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 12:35 PM
+1
and if the flood indeed engulfed the entire world, it wouldn't only lasted 40 days. if that was the case, where did all that water have gone to? (unless there was divine intervention). i do believe a great flood had occurred but i don't think it engulfed the entire world.
The bible says God intervened.
Psalm 104: 7 & 8 says the waters stood above the mountains, then God rebuked the waters, and the waters fled.
Post by: tigkal on Jul 06, 2011 at 12:39 PM
What did Jesus do during his teenage years? Parang wala yata akong nabasa sa Bible at wala rin yatang naturo sa amin ang teacher ko about his teeange life. If I remember it right, the last story in the Bible about his childhood (I think he was 12 years old) was when he's lost in the temple and after that 30 years old na kaagad sya.
Some say that Jesus went to Tibet to study. The Three Magis job was to locate Jesus so that by the time He is ready, They will take Him to Tibet. If you notice the teachings of Confucius(600 BC) and Christ, it is almost the same. Golden Rule, 7 beatitudes, non violence, etc.. It is more of Eastern teaching then Western(an eye for an eye, violence, killings,as illustrated in the old testament).
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Some say that Jesus went to Tibet to study. The Three Magis job was to locate Jesus so that by the time He is ready, They will take Him to Tibet. If you notice the teachings of Confucius(600 BC) and Christ, it is almost the same. Golden Rule, 7 beatitudes, non violence, etc.. It is more of Eastern teaching then Western(an eye for an eye, violence, killings,as illustrated in the old testament).
No, that can't be right. The answer is found in the bible itself.
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” (Matthew 13: 53-56)
Those verses tell us that the people speaking saw Jesus grow up in the same place.
Remember that nearly everyone there was illiterate, so Jesus had to have gone to some far away place to study for several years in order to gain some scholarly knowledge. If Jesus went to Tibet, then the people wouldn't have been amazed. They would have just said Jesus was away for a long time, so he must have gotten his knowledge while he was away.
Instead, the people were amazed because they couldn't figure out where Jesus got this knowldege, because they knew that Jesus was with them all the time.
Note that verse 54 says the people who were amazed were the people in "his hometown".
So where was Jesus before he started his ministry? Where he had always been --- in Nazareth, a town of Galilee.
What was he doing during that time? The son usually takes up the same work as the father, so it's likely that Jesus was working as a carpenter. "Isn't this the carpenter's son?," the people asked rhetorically.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 06, 2011 at 02:40 PM
Post by: Verbl Kint on Jul 06, 2011 at 03:00 PM
This would put Noah's age at roughly his late 70's (in solar years).
There are some who also say that the ages in Genesis were pure myth, created so as to connect genealogies much more quickly and weave the connection from Creation to the Patriarchs.
Post by: RU9 on Jul 06, 2011 at 03:36 PM
There are some who also say that the ages in Genesis were pure myth, created so as to connect genealogies much more quickly and weave the connection from Creation to the Patriarchs.
If the ages were pure myth, does it follow the the whole Genesis is also pure myth?
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 06, 2011 at 03:39 PM
Post by: indie boi on Jul 06, 2011 at 03:51 PM
What did Jesus do during his teenage years? Parang wala yata akong nabasa sa Bible at wala rin yatang naturo sa amin ang teacher ko about his teeange life. If I remember it right, the last story in the Bible about his childhood (I think he was 12 years old) was when he's lost in the temple and after that 30 years old na kaagad sya.
The Gnostic texts do have accounts of Jesus' "lost years," among them the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 03:57 PM
ano po ba ang kalendaryo gamit nila noon para masabing 950yo umabot si noah?
They used the ancient Hebrew calendar, which is a lunisolar calendar.
One day today is the same as one day in ancient times (they observed the sun); one month is the same (they used the moon); one year is the same (they used the seasons).
Ordinaryo lang naman ang 950 years old during that time. Before the great flood, the average human lifespan was about 900 years. The oldest biblical character whose age was mentioned is Methuselah (969 years old when he died). After the great flood, the average human lifespan became shorter.
Some have suggested that the ages were a mistranslation somehow, that the authors were actually counting lunar months instead of years.
This would put Noah's age at roughly his late 70's (in solar years).
There's no basis for that belief.
Genesis 9:29 says: "Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died."
The word "years" was written as "שָׁנֵה", transliterated as "shaneh". The Strong's Number is 8141: http://www.strongs-bible.com/1-Strongs-01.htm#c09 (http://www.strongs-bible.com/1-Strongs-01.htm#c09)
Shaneh means "years", plural. No mistranslation there. http://qbible.com/h/8141.html (http://qbible.com/h/8141.html)
There are some who also say that the ages in Genesis were pure myth, created so as to connect genealogies much more quickly and weave the connection from Creation to the Patriarchs.
Bible genealogies are useless for calculating periods of time because genealogies in the bible are always incomplete.
Even if you adjust the age of the bible characters, those genealogies would still be useless because they would still be incomplete.
Bible genealogies are used for connecting blood lines. If you have an incomplete set of characters, you don't need to adjust their ages to connect blood lines. You just say X begat Y, which means Y is a descendant of X, even if there were several generations between X and Y that were not mentioned.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Jul 06, 2011 at 04:41 PM
Quote
I think one of the crucial questions about reading the Bible is, do you really need to interpret it literally? I think this literal interpretation of the Bible is what's giving us a lot of trouble these days.
and sweeping spiritualization of the Bible will get you even more troubles!
aka audiophiles - to each his own venom.
Quote
In this case, "The Black Sea Deluge Theory" is a sound theory.
- or probably - just mere sound, to call attention to himself! ksp siguro yung mama.
Quote
The Gnostic texts do have accounts of Jesus' "lost years," among them the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.
I think anybody can do another one - the more, the merrier!
Quote
Bible genealogies are useless for calculating periods of time because genealogies in the bible are always incomplete.
The more useful info to calculate period of time would "generation".
Matthew 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
Though, your next problem is whether "generation" here refer to a specific length of time as suggested in http://www.bibletime.com/theory/generation.
Plus, the number of "generation" from Adam to Abraham, to complete the time from Adam to Jesus' time.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 06, 2011 at 05:48 PM
Quote
and if the flood indeed engulfed the entire world, it wouldn't only lasted 40 days. if that was the case, where did all that water have gone to? (unless there was divine intervention). i do believe a great flood had occurred but i don't think it engulfed the entire world.
i think the flood was caused by a sudden climate shift that melted the polar caps and returned there after
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 07:19 PM
i think the flood was caused by a sudden climate shift that melted the polar caps and returned there after
The bible describes two sources of water for the flood: (a) water from rain ("the windows of heaven"), and (b) water from underground ("the fountains of the great deep"):
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. (Genesis 7:11-12)
The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
(Genesis 8:2)
Melting polar ice caps will not fit the description.
The more useful info to calculate period of time would "generation".
Matthew 1:17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
Though, your next problem is whether "generation" here refer to a specific length of time as suggested in http://www.bibletime.com/theory/generation.
Plus, the number of "generation" from Adam to Abraham, to complete the time from Adam to Jesus' time.
That's not going to work. In Matthew, there are many gaps in the second and third tesseradecads (sets of fourteen).
Here's an example:
Comparing Matthew's second tesseradecad with 1 Chronicles 3, we find the following omissions: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim.
In Matthew 1:8, the author said "Jehoram the father of Uzziah", whereas if we follow 1 Chronicles 3, it should have been "Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Uzziah (also known as Azariah)".
So now, while it appears that 1 Chronicles 3 is more complete than Matthew 1, there is still no guarantee that 1 Chronicles 3 is not itself incomplete.
In fact, genealogy gaps are very common even in the Old Testament, so there's no reason to presume that 1 Chronicles 3 has no gaps.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 06, 2011 at 08:16 PM
Ordinaryo lang naman ang 950 years old during that time. Before the great flood, the average human lifespan was about 900 years. The oldest biblical character whose age was mentioned is Methuselah (969 years old when he died). After the great flood, the average human lifespan became shorter.
yup. that is true. because they have almost perfect climate/weather... natatakpan ng tubig ang mundo (might be possible reason bakit hindi agad sila tumatanda - natatakpan ang araw)... before the flood... hindi pa sila nakakaranas ng ulan...
Post by: Onkyo606 on Jul 06, 2011 at 08:20 PM
yup. that is true. because they have almost perfect climate/weather... natatakpan ng tubig ang mundo (might be possible reason bakit hindi agad sila tumatanda - natatakpan ang araw)... before the flood... hindi pa sila nakakaranas ng ulan...
dpogs dun sa NBA thread inaalaska kita pero dito sa thread na ito, kanina pa kita talaga inaantay, pati si moks at JT ;)
Post by: barrister on Jul 06, 2011 at 09:03 PM
yup. that is true. because they have almost perfect climate/weather... natatakpan ng tubig ang mundo (might be possible reason bakit hindi agad sila tumatanda - natatakpan ang araw)... before the flood... hindi pa sila nakakaranas ng ulan...
"It never rained on earth before the great flood came."
I don't think that's true.
You won't find any scriptural evidence for that belief. Genesis 2:5–6 and Hebrews 11:7 are not enough to prove it.
=======================
There Was No Rain Before the Flood
Arguments Christians Should Not Use
by Dr. Tommy Mitchell, AiG–U.S. on October 19, 2010
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/19/rain-before-flood
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 06, 2011 at 09:16 PM
Post by: tigkal on Jul 06, 2011 at 09:26 PM
No, that can't be right. The answer is found in the bible itself.
53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” (Matthew 13: 53-56)
Those verses tell us that the people speaking saw Jesus grow up in the same place.
Remember that nearly everyone there was illiterate, so Jesus had to have gone to some far away place to study for several years in order to gain some scholarly knowledge. If Jesus went to Tibet, then the people wouldn't have been amazed. They would have just said Jesus was away for a long time, so he must have gotten his knowledge while he was away.
Instead, the people were amazed because they couldn't figure out where Jesus got this knowldege, because they knew that Jesus was with them all the time.
Note that verse 54 says the people who were amazed were the people in "his hometown".
So where was Jesus before he started his ministry? Where he had always been --- in Nazareth, a town of Galilee.
What was he doing during that time? The son usually takes up the same work as the father, so it's likely that Jesus was working as a carpenter. "Isn't this the carpenter's son?," the people asked rhetorically.
If someone would go abroad in your hometown at age 12 then go back at age 33, I believe all people would still remember him as the son and brother of so and so..What I am emphasizing is the similarities of the teachings of Confucius and Christ, Confucius ahead of Christ by 600 years. And if Christ's early life is that of a normal child, then something must have happened to Him to learn such knowledge and wisdom.
Post by: Verbl Kint on Jul 07, 2011 at 12:17 AM
There's no basis for that belief.
Genesis 9:29 says: "Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died."
The word "years" was written as "שָׁנֵה", transliterated as "shaneh". The Strong's Number is 8141: http://www.strongs-bible.com/1-Strongs-01.htm#c09 (http://www.strongs-bible.com/1-Strongs-01.htm#c09)
Shaneh means "years", plural. No mistranslation there. http://qbible.com/h/8141.html (http://qbible.com/h/8141.html)
There have been changes with one version of the Torah to another.
Consider this article (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf):
There is another problem with assuming
absolute literal ages for the patriarchs in
Genesis: these ages differ significantly in
the Masoretic (MT), Septuagint (LXX), and
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) texts. The antediluvial
ages before the birth of the first son
from Adam to Noah is 1,656 years in the
Masoretic text, 1,307 in the Samaritan text,
and 2,262 years in the Septuagint text. The
postdiluvian ages before the birth of the first
son in the interval between the Flood and
Abraham is 292 years in the Masoretic text,
942 years in the Samaritan text, and 1,072
years in the Septuagint text.
I guess the whole point in the above would be that as these ersatz histories were passed down, there must have been changes, however slight, from one generation to the next. Who's to say that something as innocuous as a noun/verb/adjective that is changed/embellished/inaccurately translated can have such a profound effect on literal meaning?
Bible genealogies are useless for calculating periods of time because genealogies in the bible are always incomplete.
Even if you adjust the age of the bible characters, those genealogies would still be useless because they would still be incomplete.
Bible genealogies are used for connecting blood lines. If you have an incomplete set of characters, you don't need to adjust their ages to connect blood lines. You just say X begat Y, which means Y is a descendant of X, even if there were several generations between X and Y that were not mentioned.
My original post was a paraphrase from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah#Fictional):
Among those who believe that all the numbers of Genesis 5, including Methuselah's age, have no meaning at all, Kenneth Kitchen calls them "pure myth", Yigal Levin believes they are intended simply to speed the reader from Adam to Noah, and Claus Westermann believes they are intended to create the impression of a distant past.
Post by: barrister on Jul 07, 2011 at 01:03 AM
If someone would go abroad in your hometown at age 12 then go back at age 33, I believe all people would still remember him as the son and brother of so and so..
Yes, people would still remember him. But they would not be amazed about where he got his knowledge because they would assume that he got it from wherever he came from.
But if he never left Galilee, then he suddenly displayed knowledge and miraculous powers, now that would be amazing.
What I am emphasizing is the similarities of the teachings of Confucius and Christ, Confucius ahead of Christ by 600 years.
Confucius was very different from Jesus.
Confucius preached his ideology of benevolence and righteousness that was based on loving people, but he did not go to the bottom level of the society to be friends with them. Jesus placed more importance on the poor, mingled with them, and made them his disciples.
Confucius said, “Gentlemen have nothing to compete for". Jesus not only competed with the Jewish religious leaders, he also ridiculed their interpretation of scripture while preaching his own doctrines.
Confucianism relied on the government, but Christianity emphasized spirituality over materialism.
Confucianism remained at the level of academic thought and self-cultivation. Christianity actively went out and preached the Gospel.
The "Golden Rule" did not start with Confucius. Statements that mirror the Golden Rule appeared as early as Ancient Egypt. Many prominent religious figures and philosophers have restated it in various ways. The author Rushworth Kidder notes that this framework appears prominently in many religions, including "Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and the rest of the world's major religions". The philosopher Simon Blackburn states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".
You say Confucius predates Jesus by 600 years. But in Judaism, the rule of loving your neighbor as yourself did not originate with Jesus, it originated with Moses. Thus, Leviticus 19:18 says: "...love your neighbor as yourself".
The book of Leviticus was written sometime between 1440 and 1400 B.C., thus predating Confucius by 800 years.
In John 13:34, Jesus said: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”
To love one another as Jesus loved us goes beyond the golden rule of loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus emphasized this difference when he said it was "a NEW command", not the same command found in Leviticus.
That sort of teaching is definitely not Confucian.
And if Christ's early life is that of a normal child, then something must have happened to Him to learn such knowledge and wisdom.
Nothing happened to him. He always had that knowledge since the beginning of time because he is God incarnate.
John 1: 1-4; 14 says this about Jesus:
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
God incarnate doesn't need to be taught by Confucius. That wouldn't make sense.
You say Jesus left for Tibet when he was 12 years old, then came back with knowledge at age 33 (should be age 30).
Don't forget that he already displayed great knowledge at 12 years old, when Mary and Joseph found him at the temple discussing with religious teachers:
46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them. (Luke 2:46-50)
He didn't get that from Confucius, that's for sure. By your reckoning, he hadn't even left for abroad yet.
Post by: barrister on Jul 07, 2011 at 11:07 AM
There have been changes with one version of the Torah to another.
Consider this article (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf):
There is another problem with assuming
absolute literal ages for the patriarchs in
Genesis: these ages differ significantly in
the Masoretic (MT), Septuagint (LXX), and
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) texts. The antediluvial
ages before the birth of the first son
from Adam to Noah is 1,656 years in the
Masoretic text, 1,307 in the Samaritan text,
and 2,262 years in the Septuagint text. The
postdiluvian ages before the birth of the first
son in the interval between the Flood and
Abraham is 292 years in the Masoretic text,
942 years in the Samaritan text, and 1,072
years in the Septuagint text.
I guess the whole point in the above would be that as these ersatz histories were passed down, there must have been changes, however slight, from one generation to the next. Who's to say that something as innocuous as a noun/verb/adjective that is changed/embellished/inaccurately translated can have such a profound effect on literal meaning?
If you don't believe the bible is the Word of God, then that's OK. Just treat bible stories as fables, and there would be no need to search for a correct version.
But if you believe that the bible is the Word of God, then you would also believe that God will make sure that the correct version of the Torah is available. Otherwise, why would God bother to have his word written if we won't be able to find a correct version anyway?
In studying scripture, reliance must be placed the oldest manuscripts rather than on newer versions. Rest assured that the oldest manuscripts are consistent. It is the newer versions that have variations, because the latter scribes tended to make changes that promote their own beliefs.
Yes, it's true that there are unreliable versions and translations of the bible, but those errors are identifiable and traceable.
My original post was a paraphrase from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah#Fictional):
Among those who believe that all the numbers of Genesis 5, including Methuselah's age, have no meaning at all, Kenneth Kitchen calls them "pure myth", Yigal Levin believes they are intended simply to speed the reader from Adam to Noah, and Claus Westermann believes they are intended to create the impression of a distant past.
Their opinion is pure speculation.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe that a man can live 900 years during the pre-flood era.
If the human body's cells continue to renew themselves by division and continue to replace old cells, then a man can theoretically live forever. What scientists can't figure out is why the process slows down and stops.
Therefore, it is why we have to grow old and die that should be considered mysterious.
God designed Adam and Eve to live forever, but when they sinned, God gave their bodies a limited lifespan of around 900 years. After the great flood, God reduced the average human lifespan to what we have now.
Noah was about 500 years old when he started building the ark; it took him about 100 years to build the ark; then he died when he was 950 years old.
Now, if Noah was only 70 when he died, then how long did it take for him to build the ark? The only workers were Noah and his family. Trees had to be cut, hauled to the construction site, cut into lumber, then dried before they can be suitable for construction. They didn't have nails, they had to use pegs to hold the lumber together. Steel hadn't even been invented yet. Add to that the fact that Noah had to go around preaching during the time he was building the ark (Noah had zero converts, unfortunately).
But if you don't believe the story, that's quite all right. There's no evidence that Noah even existed, so I can't blame those who dismiss the story as a fable.
However, the way I see it, believing the story of Noah's ark and at the same time believing that he died at only 70 years old just wouldn't make sense.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 07, 2011 at 11:11 AM
yup. that is true. because they have almost perfect climate/weather... natatakpan ng tubig ang mundo (might be possible reason bakit hindi agad sila tumatanda - natatakpan ang araw)... before the flood... hindi pa sila nakakaranas ng ulan...
parang di ko yata ma-gets, pasensha na po. :)
Post by: RU9 on Jul 07, 2011 at 12:17 PM
If you don't believe the bible is the Word of God, then that's OK.
Is your belief on the bible as the word of god based on faith alone? Are there other factors?
Post by: barrister on Jul 07, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Other evidences such as archeological evidence support the truth of the bible to some extent, but I don't believe the bible can be proven to be entirely true by way of scientific evidence and logical reasoning.
You will notice that I don't force people to believe in the bible, because I acknowledge that it's impossible to prove that the bible is true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
So if someone boasts that he can prove that the bible is truly the Word of God, don't waste your time. That guy has to be a religious nutjob... :D
Post by: leomarley on Jul 07, 2011 at 01:05 PM
If you don't believe the bible is the Word of God, then that's OK. Just treat bible stories as fables, and there would be no need to search for a correct version.
But if you believe that the bible is the Word of God, then you would also believe that God will make sure that the correct version of the Torah is available. Otherwise, why would God bother to have his word written if we won't be able to find a correct version anyway?
In studying scripture, reliance must be placed the oldest manuscripts rather than on newer versions. Rest assured that the oldest manuscripts are consistent. It is the newer versions that have variations, because the latter scribes tended to make changes that promote their own beliefs.
Yes, it's true that there are unreliable versions and translations of the bible, but those errors are identifiable and traceable.
problem here is, a lot of parts of the Bible specially the oldest parts were passed down orally so how could you be sure that it's consistent? The Catholic Church also has history of changing or revising the Bible for their own benefit specially back in the Middle Ages. Although all-in-all, I it think the lessons in the Bible is a gift from God.
Post by: barrister on Jul 07, 2011 at 02:09 PM
problem here is, a lot of parts of the Bible specially the oldest parts were passed down orally so how could you be sure that it's consistent?
Not orally. They were written down, then copied and recopied by scribes word for word. But even then, the risk of error, whether deliberate or not, is still there.
So how can you be sure?
It all depends on your faith.
If you believe that God caused the bible to be written, then you should also believe that God will also make sure that the correct version is available and can be easily found.
If you don't believe it's possible to know which version is correct, then it would be illogical to believe that God caused the bible to be written.
And if you don't believe God caused it to be written, then logically, you shouldn't bother studying the bible because it's only going to be an enormous waste of your time.
=====================
Here's an example.
Anyone who quotes the bible by saying, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" is a novice in scriptural studies.
John 7:53-8:11 is a forgery that was added to the original text. It's called the "Pericope Adulterae":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
It's true that there are unreliable portions of the bible. But if you're diligently searching for God's Word, it's not going to be too difficult to distinguish the reliable portions from the unreliable ones.
Post by: leomarley on Jul 07, 2011 at 03:42 PM
Not orally. They were written down, then copied and recopied by scribes word for word. But even then, the risk of error, whether deliberate or not, is still there.
The Old Testament was written down from accounts of people who passed the story orally. So you're saying that at the time God was creating us and the world someone was already taking down notes?
this is from wikipedia:
Quote
The various books of the Jewish and Christian Bibles were the work of many persons over many centuries. Very few of them are the work of the individuals whose names have been attached to them by tradition (the major exception being a number of the letters of Paul in the New Testament), and the majority have been heavily edited to the point where their original form and history of composition are today uncertain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible)
So how can you be sure?
It all depends on your faith.
If you believe that God caused the bible to be written, then you should also believe that God will also make sure that the correct version is available and can be easily found.
If you don't believe it's possible to know which version is correct, then it would be illogical to believe that God caused the bible to be written.
And if you don't believe God caused it to be written, then logically, you shouldn't bother studying the bible because it's only going to be an enormous waste of your time.
sir, that can also be misinterpreted as naivety.
God works in mysterious ways but He cannot work alone. This also the reason why God gave us the power of reasoning and analysis. If you don't analyze anything you read, your faith can work for the devil's cause.
If you believe that God caused the bible to be written, then you should also believe that God will also make sure that the correct version is available and can be easily found.
If you don't believe it's possible to know which version is correct, then it would be illogical to believe that God caused the bible to be written.
And if you don't believe God caused it to be written, then logically, you shouldn't bother studying the bible because it's only going to be an enormous waste of your time.
I didn't say that God didn't cause the Bible to be written but what I was saying was that the first parts of the Bible, specially the Book of Genesis, was passed down orally before being transcribed into writing. Somewhere along the way, maybe some parts of it got lost or omitted (in the case of the Middle Ages' Catholic Church where church corruption was adamant).
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 07, 2011 at 04:13 PM
Where are the dead sea scrolls? ???
Post by: leomarley on Jul 07, 2011 at 04:15 PM
I just love the word naivety/naiveté. Ang ganda lang pakinggan. Hehe.
Where are the dead sea scrolls? ???
hehehe me too. nakita ko pwedeng gamitin kaya ginamit ko lol ;D
Post by: barrister on Jul 07, 2011 at 04:23 PM
The Old Testament was written down from accounts of people who passed the story orally. So you're saying that at the time God was creating us and the world someone was already taking down notes?
What about the time before God created humans. Who witnessed God creating the heavens and the earth so as to start an oral story that will be passed on to others?
The creation account was written by Moses. Moses got that from God himself, not from other persons who passed an oral story down to him. Then scribes copied the written text.
sir, that can also be misinterpreted as naivety.
I agree.
I believe Jesus rose from the dead. If someone thinks that's naive, I'm not offended. But I'm not going to force anyone else to believe it.
I didn't say that God didn't cause the Bible to be written but what I was saying was that the first parts of the Bible, specially the Book of Genesis, was passed down orally before being transcribed into writing. Somewhere along the way, maybe some parts of it got lost or omitted (in the case of the Middle Ages' Catholic Church where church corruption was adamant).
And I'm saying that the bible text came from God's inspiration, not from oral tradition.
The bible is not one book that lost some parts. Instead, different books were collected to form the bible.
It takes faith to believe that the bible is complete for purposes of our salvation. If you don't have that faith, then I won't blame you. Just go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
What I'm saying is that those doubts cannot be disproved with absolute certainty.
Where are the dead sea scrolls? ???
In a vault in Jerusalem.
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 07, 2011 at 04:46 PM
My belief in the bible is mostly based on faith.
I admire people who have faith. Backslider ako eh... hehe. But don't get me wrong, I still believe in God.
Post by: Moks007 on Jul 07, 2011 at 09:32 PM
dpogs dun sa NBA thread inaalaska kita pero dito sa thread na ito, kanina pa kita talaga inaantay, pati si moks at JT ;)
hehe present!!!..kamusta na Tirso?
One just really have to have faith. :)
John 20•24-29
One of the eleven disciples was missing. This was a man named Thomas.
After Jesus was gone, Thomas came back to the room where everyone was hiding. When he entered, the disciples told him, “Thomas, oh Thomas, it is true! We’ve seen Jesus! He’s alive! “He said to them, “No. I won’t believe it unless I see the nail marks in His hands. I have to put my finger where the nails were. If I can put my hand into His side, then I’ll believe you.”
Eight days later, Jesus visited the disciples again. This time Thomas was with them. Jesus walked right through the locked doors. “Peace be with you,” He said. Then He said, “Thomas, come here with your finger and see My hands. Touch the wounds in My hand. Put your hand into My side. Stop doubting now and believe.”
Thomas felt very ashamed for not believing. He hung his head, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus answered him, “Is it because you have seen Me, that you now believe? There will be many who do not see and are still willing to believe. Those people are special to Me.”
Post by: panzer on Jul 07, 2011 at 09:36 PM
guys can anyone explain these ? si adam and eve ang unang tao ? are they caucasian or asian ? how come ang daming races? anak nila si cain and abel? so sino sa kanila ang male and female? paano dumami yung tao?
Post by: barrister on Jul 07, 2011 at 10:06 PM
guys can anyone explain these ? si adam and eve ang unang tao ? are they caucasian or asian ? how come ang daming races? anak nila si cain and abel? so sino sa kanila ang male and female? paano dumami yung tao?
si adam and eve ang unang tao. had middle eastern features, not caucasian, not asian. maraming races because of dominance of genetic traits due to geographic location. mga unang anak nila sina cain and abel. parehong lalaki. wag mong isipin na iyon lang ang anak nila, kasi nagkaroon pa sila ng mga anak na lalaki at mga anak na babae (Gen.5:4). dumami yung tao kasi hindi naman sila puro lalaki.
Post by: panzer on Jul 07, 2011 at 10:23 PM
ok sir dominance of traits how about yung blacks? parang ang layo nun sa caucasian? sir if its geographic location say for example a black person from africa . pag nasa europe or america kahit ilang generations na nakalipas still black pa rin di ba?
Post by: barrister on Jul 07, 2011 at 10:57 PM
ok sir dominance of traits how about yung blacks? parang ang layo nun sa caucasian? sir if its geographic location say for example a black person from africa . pag nasa europe or america kahit ilang generations na nakalipas still black pa rin di ba?
Hindi tayo puwedeng mangahas na sabihing "kahit ilang generations na nakalipas", kasi konting generations lang naman ang kaya nating obserbahan.
There are speculations that when God confused the languages of the people at the Tower of Babel, he also created the different races. That's when racial diversity appeared, and the appearance was immediate.
However, the bible has no specific information about this issue.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 07, 2011 at 11:26 PM
Quote
ok sir dominance of traits how about yung blacks? parang ang layo nun sa caucasian? sir if its geographic location say for example a black person from africa . pag nasa europe or america kahit ilang generations na nakalipas still black pa rin di ba?
humans adopt to their environment to survive ung mga nasa cold places tumangos ang ilong for them to easily breathe, color darkens in places with high degree of sun exposure (effect of melanin) and of course dominance of traits (singkit, pango, etc)
Post by: jhelenz on Jul 08, 2011 at 12:00 AM
humans adopt to their environment to survive ung mga nasa cold places tumangos ang ilong for them to easily breathe, color darkens in places with high degree of sun exposure (effect of melanin) and of course dominance of traits (singkit, pango, etc)so true.at hindi lang ang tao kundi pati mga animals,plants,etc nag aadopt sila sa environment nila to survive.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 08, 2011 at 05:15 AM
Post by: panzer on Jul 08, 2011 at 06:03 AM
precisely sir dpogs , adaptation and evolution are two different things....if black people or asians lives in europe and america sana naging caucasian din mga features nila di ba? like for example yung sa south africa na whites they stayed their for centuries how come they are still white? sana naging blacks din sila, sana nag evolve sila to become blacks because of their environment? pero hindi e they remain whites pa rin. compare na lang yung structure ng asians to caucasians to blacks? magkaiba yun di ba? my point is if we come from adam and eve di tayo nagkakalayo sa kanilang physical features sana di ba?
Post by: Moks007 on Jul 08, 2011 at 06:49 AM
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FLife-Application-Study-Bible-NIV%2Fdp%2F0842348921&rct=j&q=life%20application%20study%20bible&ei=njcWTtjEHND1mAXl-aEH&usg=AFQjCNFT71YS4cHVrYHAw6ZTOrprLtPYTQ&cad=rja
It is really good.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 08, 2011 at 07:41 AM
at kahit magasawa sila ng puti pag nag anak sila laging black din anak nila
pati ung garden of eden sa may africa daw un kaya rich sila sa natural resources and animal diversity
Post by: barrister on Jul 08, 2011 at 10:22 AM
precisely sir dpogs , adaptation and evolution are two different things....if black people or asians lives in europe and america sana naging caucasian din mga features nila di ba? like for example yung sa south africa na whites they stayed their for centuries how come they are still white? sana naging blacks din sila, sana nag evolve sila to become blacks because of their environment? pero hindi e they remain whites pa rin. compare na lang yung structure ng asians to caucasians to blacks? magkaiba yun di ba? my point is if we come from adam and eve di tayo nagkakalayo sa kanilang physical features sana di ba?
Hindi mo nagets si sir dpogs. He meant the human race came from Adam and Eve, not from apes.
Puro "sana" yung sinasabi mo --- sana ganon, sana ganito --- pero hindi mo naman kayang patunayan yung mga "sana" na yon.
Ni hindi mo nga alam kung ilang libong taon ang lumipas mula nang nilikha sina Adan at Eba. Hindi mo rin alam kung nagkaroon ng racial diversity sa Tower of Babylon.
May nakita ka ngang caucasian sa South Africa, pero hindi mo naman na-trace ang mga ninuno niya kahit isang libong taon man lang.
From the scientific point of view, monogenism is now the predominant view in the scientific community. Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
Post by: jhelenz on Jul 08, 2011 at 10:41 AM
precisely sir dpogs , adaptation and evolution are two different things....if black people or asians lives in europe and america sana naging caucasian din mga features nila di ba? like for example yung sa south africa na whites they stayed their for centuries how come they are still white? sana naging blacks din sila, sana nag evolve sila to become blacks because of their environment? pero hindi e they remain whites pa rin. compare na lang yung structure ng asians to caucasians to blacks? magkaiba yun di ba? my point is if we come from adam and eve di tayo nagkakalayo sa kanilang physical features sana di ba?maybe because people today don't live long enough to para magkaroon ng effect yung environment sa atin.poeple before lived very long,and for that evolution to happen requires time and gradual change siguro nangyari nun.
just another wild guess?,for example the dogs.kahit nung una palang wala pa atang aso if i remember correctly.they came from wolves ata.at nung nagkaroon ng aso,iba iba itsura di ba?madaming breed ng aso.so what happened?well every breed of dogs as they said was the result of people in breeding them.they bred out of purpose.for example,the dachshund was bred for hunting,german shepperd for protection,etc.and it was a trial and error at that time until nakuha ng mga tao yung trait na gusto nila makuha sa dogs.kaya ngayun you have a consistent line of dogs.may papers pa nga yang mga dogs.now,applicable ba to sa tao?i dont have proof,just a wild guess or theory.anyone here an expert in genetics? ;D
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 08, 2011 at 01:06 PM
Quote
From the scientific point of view, monogenism is now the predominant view in the scientific community. Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
yan nga ung sinasabi ko tnx brader eve theory yata ung name
Post by: panzer on Jul 08, 2011 at 01:28 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 08, 2011 at 01:28 PM
yan nga ung sinasabi ko tnx brader eve theory yata ung name
Yung term na "Eve Theory" ay short cut lang yata ng buong term na "Mitochondrial Eve Hypothesis" in human genetics. Mitochondrial Eve refers to the woman from whom all living humans today descend.
Ang opposite ng Mitochondrial Eve Hypothesis ay yung Multiregional Hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans
Ang Multiregional view ay nag-umpisa sa Peking Man discovery in the 1920s. Nalaos ang Multiregional view nang sumikat ang Mitochondrial DNA. Ngayon, Mitochondrial Eve na ang usong theory.
Post by: barrister on Jul 08, 2011 at 01:36 PM
sir barrister base from monogenism as you said is it possible that adam and eve are blacks? sori sir ha i don't want to create an argument here ha .
Yes, of course it's possible that Adam and Eve were blacks, because nobody knows how they looked like.
The bible does not have that information. However, this does not mean that the bible is incomplete.
The bible is complete for purposes of salvation. It does not tell us how Adam and Eve looked like because that information is not necessary for our salvation.
================
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/02/article-1210632-063CFA18000005DC-217_634x710.jpg)
5 kids of Afro-Brazilian parents --- 2 black; 3 white with blond hair. Both parents carry the albinism gene.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210632/Meet-black-Brazilian-mother-albino-children.html
That's one generation. Add hundreds of generations to that and you'll see that black ancestors to white descendants is not such a wild idea.
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 08, 2011 at 01:41 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 08, 2011 at 09:16 PM
ibig ko lang sabihin... through all those times na akala natin nagaadopt ang tao sa kanyang sorrounding... naisip na ba natin na puwedeng sa concepcion pa lang naglagay na ng bagong genes ang Diyos para ang mga taong napunta sa malalamig ay makakapagadopt at ang mga taong napupunta sa mga maiinit na lugar ay nagiging itim...
scientifically... malaking factor ang gene/dna sa pagbuo ng tao... spiritually... God is the supreme architect/creator/engineer ng ating dna... bakit may guwapo at pangit sa mundo... gawa ng Diyos yan (God is not bound by beauty or ugliness... para sa kanya... isa tayong precious creation above all things.
Post by: barrister on Jul 08, 2011 at 11:41 PM
If you believe in Heaven.... uhm... may animals din kaya dun? Diba sabi all dogs go to heaven... what about other animals?
The bible does not specifically answer that, but it provides an indication that there are no animals in heaven (2 Peter 2:12).
Those who believe there are animals in heaven cite Isaiah 11:6-9 and 65:25. I disagree because those verses don't refer to heaven, they refer to Christ's millennial rule on earth.
If you're Catholic, I suppose you should believe there are animals in heaven, based on Pope John Paul II's 1990 statement that animals possess a soul.
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 09, 2011 at 12:09 AM
Post by: Verbl Kint on Jul 11, 2011 at 06:51 AM
there is this theory that adam and eve are black that's why blacks are better in sports, music , etc. in other words they are the dominant race
What is your basis for saying that blacks are the "dominant race"? Is there verifiable data to support this?
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 11, 2011 at 08:19 AM
What is your basis for saying that blacks are the "dominant race"? Is there verifiable data to support this?
oh that is only my personal opinion because they are dominat in sports, entertainment and they are physically stronger thats why they were chosen as slaves before
Post by: d4nu65+3R on Jul 11, 2011 at 09:21 AM
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 11, 2011 at 09:28 AM
and then there is that question of where do the dinosaurs exist in the scheme of things in the bible's timeline.
My friend encountered some Christian fundamentalists abroad. Those people said that dinosaurs NEVER existed in the first place, that the world is a little over 10,000 years old, and that the presence of dinosaur fossils do not confirm the existence of dinosaurs but they were placed there by God for one purpose - to test humanity's faith.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 11, 2011 at 09:38 AM
and then there is that question of where do the dinosaurs exist in the scheme of things in the bible's timeline.
i think it was mentioned in genesis that this creatures serve to cultivate the land
Quote
My friend encountered some Christian fundamentalists abroad. Those people said that dinosaurs NEVER existed in the first place, that the world is a little over 10,000 years old, and that the presence of dinosaur fossils do not confirm the existence of dinosaurs but they were placed there by God for one purpose - to test humanity's faith.
thats just stupid, the earth was not created 7 human days, i read somewhere that 1 day of creation equals 1000 human years
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 11, 2011 at 09:42 AM
i think it was mentioned in genesis that this creatures serve to cultivate the land
thats just stupid, the earth was not created 7 human days, i read somewhere that 1 day of creation equals 1000 human years
When it comes to determining the origin of life and other things, I prefer to stick to science.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 11, 2011 at 09:45 AM
When it comes to determining the origin of life and other things, I prefer to stick to science.
there are now "creation scientist" that are combining (rechecking) the bible with scientific facts
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 11, 2011 at 09:57 AM
there are now "creation scientist" that are combining (rechecking) the bible with scientific facts
I bet there are those who claim that while dinosaurs never existed, dinosaur fossils were placed around the world by God by unleashing meteors at the Earth.
Post by: Clinton on Jul 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM
yup. that is true. because they have almost perfect climate/weather... natatakpan ng tubig ang mundo (might be possible reason bakit hindi agad sila tumatanda - natatakpan ang araw)... before the flood... hindi pa sila nakakaranas ng ulan...
I read from somewhere before that before the flood, the earth was covered with something like a water "membrane" it protected the earth from harmful radiations of the sun, thus resulted in the long life span of the people.
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM
My friend encountered some Christian fundamentalists abroad. Those people said that dinosaurs NEVER existed in the first place, that the world is a little over 10,000 years old, and that the presence of dinosaur fossils do not confirm the existence of dinosaurs but they were placed there by God for one purpose - to test humanity's faith.
They're called YEC (Young Earth Creationists): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Dinosaur fossils to test our faith. That's one of the dumbest I've ever heard.
YEC believe the dinosaur fossils are genuine. However, they do not believe that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old. They believe those fossils represent animals that became extinct when they failed to survive the vastly different environment after the great flood of Noah's time.
thats just stupid, the earth was not created 7 human days...
I agree. "Days" in the creation account could be thousands or millions of years.
... i read somewhere that 1 day of creation equals 1000 human years
No, that's not right.
You mean 2 Peter 3:8? That verse is commonly misinterpreted.
It does not mean 1 day of creation is 1,000 years. It does not mean 1,000 human years is equivalent to 1 day for God. The correct meaning is even simpler than that.
I read from somewhere before that before the flood, the earth was covered with something like a water "membrane" it protected the earth from harmful radiations of the sun, thus resulted in the long life span of the people.
There's no basis for that belief.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/10/19/rain-before-flood
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 11, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Quote
You mean 2 Peter 3:8?
That verse is commonly misinterpreted.
It does not mean 1 day of creation is 100 years. It does not mean 1,000 human years is equivalent to 1 day for God. The correct meaning is even simpler than that.
could you enlighten me on this brader
side note: tanniyn, behemoth and leviathan was mentioned in the bible 28 times which describes a dinosaur or dragon
Post by: d4nu65+3R on Jul 11, 2011 at 10:34 AM
I bet there are those who claim that while dinosaurs never existed, dinosaur fossils were placed around the world by God by unleashing meteors at the Earth.
reading this, scenes from transformers flashed in my head. :D baka ito din idea ni bay.
Post by: tigkal on Jul 11, 2011 at 10:57 AM
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 11:01 AM
could you enlighten me on this brader
side note: tanniyn, behemoth and leviathan was mentioned in the bible 28 times which describes a dinosaur or dragon
First, tell me what you think, so you can help me make my answer more responsive.
Do you think 2 Peter 3:8 means one day for God is equivalent to 1,000 years for man? I ask because that is the common interpretation.
============
As for your side note, "tanniyn" (תַּנִּין) can mean dragon, serpent, or sea monster, but not "dinosaur": http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8577
Tanniyn is used 28 times in the bible --- as dragon 21 times; as serpent 3 times; as whale 3 times; and as sea monster once.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=dragon%2A+H8577&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=serpent%2A+H8577&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=whale%2A+H8577&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=sea+monster%2A+H8577&t=KJV
In the creation account, tanniyn is used only once, in Gen. 1:21, where the word is translated as "whales". (See Strong's Number 8577 in Gen. 1:21 --- http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=whale%2A+H8577&t=KJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=whale%2A+H8577&t=KJV))
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Quote
Do you think 2 Peter 3:8 means one day for God is equivalent to 1,000 years for man? I ask because that is the common interpretation.
yes that was also my interpretation ;D
Quote
As for your side note, "tanniyn" (תַּנִּין) can mean dragon, serpent, or sea monster, but not "dinosaur": http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8577
i think dragons and dinosaur are the same specie the only difference is that dragons breathe fire maybe dragons are one of the sub-specie of dinosaur, like the bombardier beetle who breathes fire but still a sub-specie of beetle
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 01:25 PM
yes that was also my interpretation ;D
Read 2 Peter 3:8 closely:
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends:
With the Lord a day is like a thousand years,
and a thousand years are like a day.
It says: (a) "With the Lord" = a day is like a thousand years; and (b) "With the Lord" = a thousand years are like a day.
The verse does not say 1 day for God is equivalent to 1,000 years "for man".
What it means is that since God is eternal, the difference between 1 day and 1,000 years is immaterial to Him. Since God is eternal, He will not grow impatient, unlike humans.
Read verses 8 and 9 together and it will make sense:
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends:
With the Lord a day is like a thousand years,
and a thousand years are like a day.
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise,
as some understand slowness. Instead he is
patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish,
but everyone to come to repentance.
I told you it was really simple.
Misinterpreting that verse will lead to a slew of other misinterpretations. For example:
1,000 years is 1 "day"; we are awaiting the millennial reign of Christ which will be 1,000 years of peace; the coming 1,000 years of peace is a "day" of rest; the "day of rest" is the 7th day, therefore the future 1,000 years of peace will be the 7th thousand years; therefore the 6 prior "days" are actually 6,000 prior years before the coming 7th thousand years; therefore, the human race has been around for no more than 6,000 years; therefore the Young Earth Creationists are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
I disagree with Young Earth Creationism, because to agree with them is to ignore clear archeological and scientfic evidence that can be easily harmonized with the truth of the bible.
i think dragons and dinosaur are the same specie the only difference is that dragons breathe fire maybe dragons are one of the sub-specie of dinosaur, like the bombardier beetle who breathes fire but still a sub-specie of beetle
No, that's not it.
Dragons are mythological/folkloric creatures. They do not exist, and there is no evidence that they ever existed.
But dinosaurs are very real, and their past existence is proved by archeological evidence.
In the Old Testament, the translation "dragon" does not refer to what we now recognize as the winged, fire-breathing reptile of legend, myth and folklore. Instead, all that is clear from the Old Testament text is that it must have been a large, poisonous creature that may have looked like a serpent.
The bombardier beetle does not breathe fire, although it does eject a spray of noxious chemicals.
Post by: oReOsHaKe on Jul 11, 2011 at 04:21 PM
My friend encountered some Christian fundamentalists abroad. Those people said that dinosaurs NEVER existed in the first place, that the world is a little over 10,000 years old, and that the presence of dinosaur fossils do not confirm the existence of dinosaurs but they were placed there by God for one purpose - to test humanity's faith.
Naalala ko tuloy roommate ko non sa UP Diliman. He doesnt believe that dinosaurs ever existed. Gusto ko matawa non nong sinabi nya sa kin kaso he was very serious when he told me his belief. People can really be blinded by their faith.
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Naalala ko tuloy roommate ko non sa UP Diliman. He doesnt believe that dinosaurs ever existed. Gusto ko matawa non nong sinabi nya sa kin kaso he was very serious when he told me his belief. People can really be blinded by their faith.
:D
E ano raw para sa kanya si Sue? Plastic T. rex na made in China? ::)
(http://museum.gov.ns.ca/site-museum/media/MNH/SUE_TREX_FULL.jpg)
FMNH PR 2081, the largest, most extensive and best preserved Tyrannosaurus rex specimen ever found. Discovered in 1990 by paleontologist Sue Hendrickson. Auctioned to the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) in 1997 for $8.36 million.
http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mnhnew/en/home/whattoseedo/sue.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur))
Post by: thebat on Jul 11, 2011 at 05:06 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 05:28 PM
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.
It's pseudoscience.
The theory became hugely popular because of the 1968 book "Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past" by German author Erich von Däniken.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Chariots_Of_The_Gods.jpg)
Scientists and historians have rejected his ideas, claiming that the book's conclusions were based on faulty, pseudoscientific evidence, some of which was later demonstrated to be fraudulent and/or fabricated, and under illogical premises.
However, the concept did not start in 1968 with Däniken. A 2004 article in Skeptic Magazine states that Däniken plagiarized many of the book's concepts from The Morning of the Magicians, that this book in turn was heavily influenced by the Cthulhu Mythos, and that the core of the ancient astronaut theory originates in H. P. Lovecraft's short stories "The Call of Cthulhu" written in 1926, and "At the Mountains of Madness" written in 1931. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-04-26/ (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-04-26/)
The idea just keeps gettng recycled. Now, we have Ancient Aliens from the History Channel.
I guess even the History Channel has no choice but to play the ratings game ... :P
=====================
Ancient Aliens review by Jon Dunmore (22 May 2010):
It seems these modern commentators (professors, authors, scientists, etc.) lack the imagination to comprehend that mathematicians, architects and astronomers could exist before Harvard, Oxford and NASA, even though they should be well aware of Eratosthenes, Ptolemy, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, et al. 5,000 years ago, mankind's braincase held the same cubic volume it does today; no reason why ancient Egyptians could not utilize their intellects intuitively and figure out planetary movements and mechanical manipulation of superstructures. Modern "ancient alien" proponents only bring shame on themselves with their credulity - anything inexplicable is immediately attributed to Ancient Aliens, rather than the slightest nod given to human ingenuity. How were these massive blocks moved? Ancient Aliens! Why does this bas-relief depict a flying machine? Ancient Aliens! How did they know of Sirius B? Ancient Aliens! When I stub my toe on the bedpost--Ancient Aliens!
http://www.poffysmoviemania.com/AncientAliens.html
Post by: Dilbert7 on Jul 11, 2011 at 06:13 PM
That's not going to work. In Matthew, there are many gaps in the second and third tesseradecads (sets of fourteen).
Here's an example:
Comparing Matthew's second tesseradecad with 1 Chronicles 3, we find the following omissions: Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Jehoiakim.
In Matthew 1:8, the author said "Jehoram the father of Uzziah", whereas if we follow 1 Chronicles 3, it should have been "Jehoram, Ahaziah, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Uzziah (also known as Azariah)".
So now, while it appears that 1 Chronicles 3 is more complete than Matthew 1, there is still no guarantee that 1 Chronicles 3 is not itself incomplete.
In fact, genealogy gaps are very common even in the Old Testament, so there's no reason to presume that 1 Chronicles 3 has no gaps.
It will not, if you hold the notion that genealogies is the same as generation. Some scholars think that reference of "generation" is about specific length of time (debatable between 70 or 80 years). It is like saying that 14 generation is probably 14x70 years or 14x80 years.
Short of saying, in 1 generation, there could have been a number of sons' sons.
If someone would go abroad in your hometown at age 12 then go back at age 33, I believe all people would still remember him as the son and brother of so and so..What I am emphasizing is the similarities of the teachings of Confucius and Christ, Confucius ahead of Christ by 600 years. And if Christ's early life is that of a normal child, then something must have happened to Him to learn such knowledge and wisdom.
At the age of 12, the knowledge of Jesus already astonished the scribes & pharisees. He already ascribed to himself the prophecy of Isaiah before the adults & priests inside a temple.
problem here is, a lot of parts of the Bible specially the oldest parts were passed down orally so how could you be sure that it's consistent? The Catholic Church also has history of changing or revising the Bible for their own benefit specially back in the Middle Ages. Although all-in-all, I it think the lessons in the Bible is a gift from God.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deadsea.html
the recent manuscripts being held for exhibition came from dead sea caves - contains old manuscripts like Isaiah. Comparison with a reliable Bible translation hardly showed discrepancies. Since the manuscripts was found on present islamist soil, Islamic countries are demanding Israel to return the manuscripts - because it proves Israel's existence in their territory. Furthermore, it validates some of the oldest manuscripts in Israel as well as the faithfulness of the Bible translation that we have today.
Post by: reynold on Jul 11, 2011 at 06:13 PM
but to the extent siguro na maaapektuhan ang faith and beliefs ko kay God, i think i'll still stick to my faith with our god :)
Post by: Dilbert7 on Jul 11, 2011 at 06:45 PM
guys can anyone explain these ? si adam and eve ang unang tao ? are they caucasian or asian ? how come ang daming races? anak nila si cain and abel? so sino sa kanila ang male and female? paano dumami yung tao?
Different races started at the tower of babel, when human with great minds, are working together (synergy) to build a high tower that is intended to reach the heavens (reaching God) - and challenge Him. So He gave them different language to speak and scattered them.
God said that what they are doing that time is too early, because that action is slated in the last days - when there will be more knowledge, and explanations to the unexplained. In the last days when people will be sharing vast knowledge instantaneously, they will declare themselves the gods, and challenge Him once more.
maybe because people today don't live long enough to para magkaroon ng effect yung environment sa atin.poeple before lived very long,and for that evolution to happen requires time and gradual change siguro nangyari nun.
just another wild guess?,for example the dogs.kahit nung una palang wala pa atang aso if i remember correctly.they came from wolves ata.at nung nagkaroon ng aso,iba iba itsura di ba?madaming breed ng aso.so what happened?well every breed of dogs as they said was the result of people in breeding them.they bred out of purpose.for example,the dachshund was bred for hunting,german shepperd for protection,etc.and it was a trial and error at that time until nakuha ng mga tao yung trait na gusto nila makuha sa dogs.kaya ngayun you have a consistent line of dogs.may papers pa nga yang mga dogs.now,applicable ba to sa tao?i dont have proof,just a wild guess or theory.anyone here an expert in genetics? ;D
What you described is not evolution.
Kung yung aso, tinubuan ng pakpak - o yung tao, tinubuan ng payong sa ulo sa maulang lugar - baka pa.
breeding dogs will not alter their DNA identification as dogs. Human DNA remains the same. Make a small addition or deletion in the DNA of humans and you end up with abnormalities that can not even reproduced - do not survive and will not survive.
In the absence of those missing links of the evolution, it will take more faith to believe Darwin than to believe the Bible.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Jul 11, 2011 at 06:57 PM
Atty barrister, Nakakapagtaka naman kasi sir kung bakit may mga ganun kalalaking relics, buildings, signs, etc. na natayo nung mga time na yun where technologies like today doesn't exist... How can we explain all of that evidences na pinakita nila sa Ancient Aliens... Mapapaisip ka talaga, and isa na ako sa medyo napapaisip kung totoo nga ang ancient Aliens... its possible, don't you think? ;)
but to the extent siguro na maaapektuhan ang faith and beliefs ko kay God, i think i'll still stick to my faith with our god :)
This is in fact the predicament of young generations today. Media posturings to peddle combined facts & myth, and present them as if they are altogether fact, swaying believism on erroneous presentation. We have come to the point in time that media is just becoming a tool to condition the mind of people, rather than to present facts. This is so prevalent today anywhere in the world.
If you believe the bible, such state of the world will not be so surprising - rather, it is expected.
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 07:21 PM
Atty barrister, Nakakapagtaka naman kasi sir kung bakit may mga ganun kalalaking relics, buildings, signs, etc. na natayo nung mga time na yun where technologies like today doesn't exist...
Bakit naman nakakapagtaka?
Just because the ancients didn't have the technology we have today, it doesn't mean that it was impossible for them to have built those great structures.
It would still have been possible for the ancients to build them without modern technology, except that their construction time would have been much longer.
How can we explain all of that evidences na pinakita nila sa Ancient Aliens...
Madali lang yan sir. E di magbigay ka ng example ng evidence nila at pag-usapan natin.
Mapapaisip ka talaga, and isa na ako sa medyo napapaisip kung totoo nga ang ancient Aliens... ;)
Ang generation ko ay ang Chariots of the Gods ni Daniken (medyo gurang na kasi tayo sir... :D). Naloko rin ako ng librong yon noong circa 1977, nang kinuwento ng kuya ng barkada ko.
... its possible, don't you think? ;)
Sure, it's possible that aliens built it. But mere "possibility" should not be enough basis for belief in such a fantastic claim.
The late scientist Carl Sagan was one of Daniken's critics. While Sagan did not rule out the possibility of alien visitation, he nevertheless insisted that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Unfortunately, Daniken does not provide us with "extraordinary evidence" to back up his "extraordinary claims", and neither does the TV program Ancient Aliens.
The scientific community does not accept the Ancient Aliens theory simply because it provides nothing but speculation, pseudoscience and pseudohistory.
but to the extent siguro na maaapektuhan ang faith and beliefs ko kay God, i think i'll still stick to my faith with our god :)
Bakit naman?
Kung may malinaw na evidence na tama ang Ancient Aliens, dapat nating paniwalaan na aliens nga ang gumawa ng great structures of the ancient times. Pag malinaw na ang ebidensiya at ayaw pa rin nating maniwala, hindi "faith" ang tawag doon, kundi "fanaticism".
Ang deperensiya, wala namang malinaw na ebidensiya ang Ancient Aliens na yan, e. Puro kuwento ni Lola Basyang ... :D
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 11, 2011 at 07:34 PM
ung mga rizalista yata ay may paniniwala sa aliens
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 07:48 PM
wala bang nabangit sa bible tungkol sa aliens?
ung mga rizalista yata ay may paniniwala sa aliens
Walang nabanggit sa bibliya patungkol sa aliens, sir. Kaya hindi rin natin masasabing imposible ang alien life forms.
Hindi naman isang grupo lang ang Rizalistas. Marami rin silang iba-ibang sekta. Halimbawa: Samahan ng Tatlong Persona Solo Dios, Ciudad Mistica de Dios, Adamista, Bathalismo, Watawat ng Lahi, Iglesia Sagrada Flilipina, Espiritual Pilipino Catholic Church, atbp.
Karamihan ay sinasamba si Rizal, kasi naniniwala sila na si Rizal ay reincarnation ni Hesukristo. Pero wala pa akong nabalitaan na sektang Rizalista na may paniniwala sa aliens. Maaaring personal na paniniwala ng miyembro, pero hindi opisyal na doktrina ng sekta.
Post by: devlin_waugh on Jul 11, 2011 at 08:12 PM
wala bang nabangit sa bible tungkol sa aliens?
ung mga rizalista yata ay may paniniwala sa aliens
Raelians po yun...
Post by: barrister on Jul 11, 2011 at 08:16 PM
Ngayon ko lang narinig yung Raelians. Thanks for that post, sir!
Babasa ako sa wiki mamaya... :D
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 11, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Quote
Raelians po yun...
parang real aliens :D
Post by: oReOsHaKe on Jul 11, 2011 at 09:03 PM
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..
Post by: tigkal on Jul 12, 2011 at 09:22 AM
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..
Post by: barrister on Jul 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM
Sitchin bases his arguments on his personal interpretations of pre-Nubian and Sumerian texts, and the seal VA 243.
(http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/VA243/VA243.jpg)
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
================
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo152x23.gif)
Origin of the Species, From an Alien View
By COREY KILGANNON
Published: January 8, 2010
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/01/10/nyregion/10alone_2/articleInline.jpg)
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
Post by: thebat on Jul 12, 2011 at 12:54 PM
Post by: BusyChild on Jul 12, 2011 at 01:01 PM
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 ;D.
+1 big alien mothership :D
I like alien talk too. Baka ma-OT dito.... Pls create one or please post link.
Post by: reynold on Jul 12, 2011 at 01:18 PM
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,142179.new.html#new (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,142179.new.html#new)
Post by: barrister on Jul 12, 2011 at 01:21 PM
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 ... :D
Post by: panzer on Jul 12, 2011 at 01:29 PM
sir barrister it only shows how mature people here in pinoydvd that we respect each and everyones point of view regarding religion or alienthology ..... :D pero masarap din mag debate di ba? :D :D
Post by: reynold on Jul 12, 2011 at 01:40 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 12, 2011 at 02:11 PM
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 ... :D
... may kapitbahay kaming ganyan dati, iniiwasan tuloy namin makipag-kwentuhan sa kanya kasi palagi sya nagsisingit ng topic about religion ;D
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. ;)
Post by: thebat on Jul 12, 2011 at 02:22 PM
Post by: scifi-fan on Jul 12, 2011 at 02:28 PM
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%
Post by: tigkal on Jul 12, 2011 at 03:03 PM
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.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 12, 2011 at 03:08 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 12, 2011 at 03:33 PM
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.
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Jul 28, 2011 at 03:42 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 28, 2011 at 03:45 PM
Science and God.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 28, 2011 at 03:49 PM
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...
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Jul 28, 2011 at 03:58 PM
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?
Post by: oweidah on Jul 28, 2011 at 09:56 PM
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 ... :D
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 ;D
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 01:01 PM
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 ... :D
Post by: tigkal on Jul 29, 2011 at 01:49 PM
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 ;)
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 01:54 PM
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.
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Jul 29, 2011 at 02:16 PM
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?
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 03:00 PM
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.
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 03:44 PM
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.
Post by: Armz316 on Jul 29, 2011 at 04:12 PM
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.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2011 at 04:17 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 04:21 PM
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.
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 04:40 PM
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").
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Anton_LaVey_photo.jpg/220px-Anton_LaVey_photo.jpg)
Anton LaVey
The Satanic Bible is not some rare, mysterious book. If you want, you can order one from Amazon ;):
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/310Sjb9%2BueL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
http://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Bible-Anton-Szandor-Lavey/dp/0380015390
Yung Church of Satan, may website pa nga, e --- http://www.churchofsatan.com/ (http://www.churchofsatan.com/) They're looking for a few outstanding individuals ... :D
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
Post by: thebat on Jul 29, 2011 at 06:01 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 06:07 PM
Depende sa point of view yon, e ... :D
Post by: thebat on Jul 29, 2011 at 06:08 PM
Nung kasikatan nya binanggit na he was in the inside gatefold nung Hotel California album, sa inside hotel balcony. Na mention din na that same hotel they 1st held their convention.
I was 12 years old then so syempre natakot ako! ;D
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 06:30 PM
That's never been confirmed. Yung picture naman ay madilim na, malabo pa:
(http://www.itwillpass.com/HotelCaliforniaAlbumBackCover2Head.jpg)
Si Anton LaVey ba yung nasa bintana? Puwede siguro, pero ang labo ng picture, e.
Anyway, here's what snopes.com says: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/hotel.asp
(http://blogs.abc.net.au/.a/6a00e0097e4e688833011570155efb970c-300wi)
Front
(http://spinningsounds.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/hotel-california-back-cover.jpg?w=369&h=366)
Back
Post by: thebat on Jul 29, 2011 at 06:35 PM
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2011 at 07:08 PM
welcome to the hotel california.........You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave! ;D
^ one of my all-time faves, along with - stairway to heaven & sympathy for the devil ;D
Post by: patrick_bateman on Jul 29, 2011 at 07:24 PM
also Satan Orbital + Kirk Hammett sa Spawn soundtrack naman ;D
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 07:28 PM
Hotel California backmasking on YouTube:
(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/WodaLlkn2cU/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WodaLlkn2cU
Hotel California album art on YouTube:
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/t-_1_d2m0ew/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-_1_d2m0ew
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2011 at 07:40 PM
Nahahalata yung mga gurang, a ... :D YouTube naman para hindi boring ... 8)
Hotel California album art on YouTube:
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/t-_1_d2m0ew/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-_1_d2m0ew
Hotel California backmasking on YouTube:
(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/WodaLlkn2cU/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WodaLlkn2cU
hindi tumatanda ang vampira. basta lagi may sariwang laman, este dinuguan pala. kitamo si tom "church of scientology" cruise ;D
Post by: sardaukar on Jul 29, 2011 at 08:36 PM
Nahahalata yung mga gurang, a ... :D YouTube naman para hindi boring ... 8)
Hotel California backmasking on YouTube:
(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/WodaLlkn2cU/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WodaLlkn2cU
Hotel California album art on YouTube:
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/t-_1_d2m0ew/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-_1_d2m0ew
Wow, backmasking. Haven't heard that word in a loooong time. Malamang di na alam ng mga bata ngayon yan. ;D
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 09:57 PM
Ngayon, wala yatang CD-MP3 player na puwedeng mag reverse play. Kailangan pang i-encode nang reverse.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 29, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band.jpg)
(http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/ac1.jpg)
http://www.controverscial.com/Aleister%20Crowley.htm
Post by: Phobos on Jul 29, 2011 at 11:01 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Hotel California - backmasking - Satanism - religion;
Sgt. Pepper - Aleister Crowley - occultism - religion.
Hindi naman masyadong malayo ang OT.
Post by: Phobos on Jul 29, 2011 at 11:15 PM
Post by: Armz316 on Jul 30, 2011 at 01:46 AM
Sorry guys if i went out of the topic. i didn't know that this would have a lot of feed backs.
Sorry po admin. I hope i'm not banned here at Pdvd. God bless everyone here.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 30, 2011 at 03:26 AM
No, that's not it. Adam, Eve, the serpent and God understood each other clearly. They were all talking about physical death.
Romans 5:12-13
God is talking about spiritual death... the serpent is very subtle... it attacks adam and eve kung saan sila mahina - physical and human pride. Pleasant in the eyes and will make them wise.
same pa rin sa nangyayari ngayon... laging may bumubulong sa tenga ng tao na walang Diyos and those who believe that there is no God can be considered mas matalino kesa sa mga naniniwala sa Diyos. Very old trick but still very effective.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 30, 2011 at 07:30 AM
"baligtad" na naman ang araw at gabi sa middleeast
Post by: indie boi on Jul 30, 2011 at 07:39 AM
God is talking about spiritual death... the serpent is very subtle... it attacks adam and eve kung saan sila mahina - physical and human pride. Pleasant in the eyes and will make them wise.
Where did pride come from? If man was made in the image of God does that mean God is also proud?
Post by: barrister on Jul 30, 2011 at 11:13 AM
Romans 5:12-13
God is talking about spiritual death... the serpent is very subtle... it attacks adam and eve kung saan sila mahina - physical and human pride. Pleasant in the eyes and will make them wise.
No, Romans 5 is different. It's about the effect of the the fall of man. It does not discuss how Adam understood God when he was warned about the forbidden fruit.
The result of the fall of man was both spiritual and physical death, but the resulting spiritual death was not clarified by God as part of His warning to Adam.
God's only warning was, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
After Adam sinned, sana sinabi ng Diyos kay Adan, "Do you remember what I said about you dying on the same day? I meant spiritual death." Pero wala namang sinabi ang Diyos na ganon.
Instead, God cursed Adam to "return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Since physical death was the warning, then physical death was the penalty.
But religious pastors can't explain why Adam did not die physically on the same day that he ate the fruit, that's why they say Adam died only spiritually and not physically. E di lusot na. Hindi niya kasi kayang ipaliwanag, e ... :D
Which brings us back to the original question. If on the day he eats the fruit, Adam would surely die physically, why did he continue living for many more years?
The key is accurate translation. Here's the rendition from YLT (Young's Literal Translation):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&version=YLT
Post by: Wildfire™ on Jul 30, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Quote
But religious pastors can't explain why Adam did not die physically on the same day that he ate the fruit, that's why they say Adam died only spiritually and not physically. E di lusot na. Hindi niya kasi kayang ipaliwanag, e ... Cheesy
+100 ;D
dati on our retreat i asked the priest (curious ako e) kung bakit Sto. Niño ang tawag kay jesus when he was young, and bakit hindi Sto Jesus na nung tumanda siya. Sabi lang niya sakin dont question the church :D :D :D
Post by: bananabond on Jul 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 30, 2011 at 01:00 PM
sir barrister ano ang religion niyo if you dont mind me asking.
I consider myself a Christian, but I'm not a member of any sect.
did you take up theology?
Yes, but only the Religion/Theology subjects in Catholic school.
Not very helpful, since I don't believe in Catholic doctrine.
Post by: bananabond on Jul 30, 2011 at 05:08 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 30, 2011 at 10:37 PM
so you dont attend any sunday service sir?
No, sir.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 31, 2011 at 12:10 AM
No, Romans 5 is different. It's about the effect of the the fall of man. It does not discuss how Adam understood God when he was warned about the forbidden fruit.
The result of the fall of man was both spiritual and physical death, but the resulting spiritual death was not clarified by God as part of His warning to Adam.
God's only warning was, "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
After Adam sinned, sana sinabi ng Diyos kay Adan, "Do you remember what I said about you dying on the same day? I meant spiritual death." Pero wala namang sinabi ang Diyos na ganon.
Instead, God cursed Adam to "return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Since physical death was the warning, then physical death was the penalty.
But religious pastors can't explain why Adam did not die physically on the same day that he ate the fruit, that's why they say Adam died only spiritually and not physically. E di lusot na. Hindi niya kasi kayang ipaliwanag, e ... :D
Which brings us back to the original question. If on the day he eats the fruit, Adam would surely die physically, why did he continue living for many more years?
The key is accurate translation. Here's the rendition from YLT (Young's Literal Translation):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&version=YLT
Hindi kaya immortal sila Adam & Eve before they ate the fruit? Hence punishment, mortality?
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2011 at 09:35 AM
Hindi kaya immortal sila Adam & Eve before they ate the fruit? Hence punishment, mortality?
That's right.
Post by: JT on Aug 02, 2011 at 01:45 AM
(http://www.zaludnica.com/img/funny/religious-top-trumps/religious-top-trumps01.jpg)
(http://www.zaludnica.com/img/funny/religious-top-trumps/religious-top-trumps02.jpg)
(http://www.zaludnica.com/img/funny/religious-top-trumps/religious-top-trumps03.jpg)
(http://www.zaludnica.com/img/funny/religious-top-trumps/religious-top-trumps04.jpg)
(http://www.zaludnica.com/img/funny/religious-top-trumps/religious-top-trumps05.jpg)
Post by: Verbl Kint on Aug 03, 2011 at 06:42 AM
...and those who believe that there is no God can be considered mas matalino kesa sa mga naniniwala sa Diyos
Bakit po ninyo nasabi yan?
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 03, 2011 at 07:48 AM
Bakit po ninyo nasabi yan?
Maybe because they use logic, and evidence (scientific ones) rather than faith.
I for one is intrigued by the fact that there are no grass during the time of the dinosaurs but grass covers 25% of the land today. Where they late creations or the product of fauna evolution?
No fossil evidence of chickens and there are chickens now, how come?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2011 at 09:22 AM
Maybe because they use logic, and evidence (scientific ones) rather than faith.
I for one is intrigued by the fact that there are no grass during the time of the dinosaurs but grass covers 25% of the land today. Where they late creations or the product of fauna evolution?
No fossil evidence of chickens and there are chickens now, how come?
no fossils of the so called "missing link" and there are humans right now... how come?
creation is by faith... so is evolution....
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 03, 2011 at 09:28 AM
no fossils of the so called "missing link" and there are humans right now... how come?
creation is by faith... so is evolution....
Because it's still missing... :D
anyway, I agree with the faith thingy, though at different motivations and different impetus.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2011 at 09:36 AM
Because it's still missing... :D
anyway, I agree with the faith thingy, though at different motivations and different impetus.
maybe the chicken fossil still missing also... :)
sino ba naman ang 'may isip na tatay' na isasakripisyo ang buhay ng sariling anak para sa Diyos (Abraham)?
wala sa logic.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang gagawa ng malaking barko kasi may darating na baha (Moses)?
wala sa logic at reasoning... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwalang general ng army na itaas lang niya ang kanyang kamay titigil na sa pagikot ang buwan at araw?
wala sa logic at science.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwala na kapag hinawakan mo ang damit ni Jesus ay gagaling ka sa sakit?
walang scientific explanation.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwala na ang isang patay ay muling mabubuhay?
walang scientific explanation.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwala na kapag ininom mo ang 'living water' ay hindi ka mamatay?
wala sa logic... only by faith.
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 03, 2011 at 09:51 AM
Post by: sardaukar on Aug 03, 2011 at 09:58 AM
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 03, 2011 at 10:18 AM
I guess a more specific thing to wonder about is why are most animals found in fossils no longer around today and conversely, why are most animals today not found in fossils?
Because of faith? :D
Post by: Wildfire™ on Aug 03, 2011 at 10:32 AM
Quote
sino ba naman ang gagawa ng malaking barko kasi may darating na baha (Moses)?
wala sa logic at reasoning... only by faith.
si noah brader dpogs ;D
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2011 at 12:35 PM
Maybe because they use logic, and evidence (scientific ones) rather than faith.
I for one is intrigued by the fact that there are no grass during the time of the dinosaurs but grass covers 25% of the land today. Where they late creations or the product of fauna evolution?
No fossil evidence of chickens and there are chickens now, how come?
Scientific theories change over time.
They used to think grass appeared after dinosaurs became extinct. Not anymore.
They also used to think birds did not coexist with dinosaurs. That one's now in the process of an upgrade.
Dinosaurs had appetite for grass
A study of fossil dinosaur dung has for the first time
confirmed that the ancient reptiles ate grass.
Last Updated: Thursday, 17 November 2005, 18:55 GMT
Grass was previously thought to have become common only after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
...The study also sheds new light on the evolution of grass. Grasses are thought to have undergone a major diversification and geographic proliferation during the so-called Cenozoic, after the dinosaurs had gone extinct.
But the researchers found at least five different types of grass in the droppings.
This suggests grasses had already undergone substantial diversification in the Late Cretaceous, when the giant beasts still walked the Earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4443696.stm
Relatives of Living Ducks and Chickens Existed
Alongside Dinosaurs More Than 65 Million Years Ago
Jan. 19, 2005
Newly published North Carolina State University research into the evolution of birds shows the first definitive fossil proof linking close relatives of living birds to a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14307985
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 03, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Scientific theories change over time.
They used to think grass appeared after dinosaurs became extinct. Not anymore.
They also used to think birds did not coexist with dinosaurs. That one's now in the process of an upgrade.
Dinosaurs had appetite for grass
A study of fossil dinosaur dung has for the first time
confirmed that the ancient reptiles ate grass.
Grass was previously thought to have become common only after the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
The study also sheds new light on the evolution of grass. Grasses are thought to have undergone a major diversification and geographic proliferation during the so-called Cenozoic, after the dinosaurs had gone extinct.
But the researchers found at least five different types of grass in the droppings.
This suggests grasses had already undergone substantial diversification in the Late Cretaceous, when the giant beasts still walked the Earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4443696.stm
Relatives of Living Ducks and Chickens Existed
Alongside Dinosaurs More Than 65 Million Years Ago
Jan. 19, 2005
Newly published North Carolina State University research into the evolution of birds shows the first definitive fossil proof linking close relatives of living birds to a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14307985
Thanks for these. ;)
Post by: tigkal on Aug 03, 2011 at 12:54 PM
It is similar to the TV show exposing the logic and science behind the magic tricks of the magicians. At a glance it was magic. But when explained, there was logic, science and human nature..
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 03, 2011 at 01:09 PM
During their time, it was faith, During our time, we interpret is as faith. Later, Logic, Science and Human Nature will explain the reason behind the faith.
It is similar to the TV show exposing the logic and science behind the magic tricks of the magicians. At a glance it was magic. But when explained, there was logic, science and human nature..
I hope it can explain the virgin birth...
Post by: Moks007 on Aug 03, 2011 at 01:34 PM
maybe the chicken fossil still missing also... :)
sino ba naman ang 'may isip na tatay' na isasakripisyo ang buhay ng sariling anak para sa Diyos (Abraham)?
wala sa logic.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang gagawa ng malaking barko kasi may darating na baha (Moses)?
wala sa logic at reasoning... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwalang general ng army na itaas lang niya ang kanyang kamay titigil na sa pagikot ang buwan at araw?
wala sa logic at science.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwala na kapag hinawakan mo ang damit ni Jesus ay gagaling ka sa sakit?
walang scientific explanation.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwala na ang isang patay ay muling mabubuhay?
walang scientific explanation.... only by faith.
sino ba naman ang maniniwala na kapag ininom mo ang 'living water' ay hindi ka mamatay?
wala sa logic... only by faith.
Faith..Hebrews Chapter 11
11Now faith is the substance [1] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet [2] speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, [3] not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. 21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones. 23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment. 24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ [4] greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. 28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. 29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided [5] some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Post by: devlin_waugh on Aug 03, 2011 at 02:56 PM
Post by: The Stig on Aug 03, 2011 at 08:45 PM
si noah brader dpogs ;D
Burned! ;D
Post by: tigkal on Aug 04, 2011 at 08:33 AM
I hope it can explain the virgin birth...
Actually it can be explained now. The current technology now can make a virgin woman pregnant by artificial insemination. This is what was said by a tv series in history channel. Ancient Aliens I think.
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2011 at 11:37 AM
I hope it can explain the virgin birth...
:D
If it's just a fairy tale, why bother thinking up an explanation?
Actually it can be explained now. The current technology now can make a virgin woman pregnant by artificial insemination. This is what was said by a tv series in history channel. Ancient Aliens I think.
That's not an explanation, that's speculation.
Aliens impregnating Mary by artificial insemination more than 2,000 years ago?
Man, that's pretty wild. That's about as wild as believing that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. You'll need a lot of faith to believe either story ... :D
Why not just keep it simple. How about Mary was impregnated by some other dude. Or maybe the bible story is pure fiction, and neither Mary nor Jesus ever existed. After all, there's no evidence that Jesus ever existed, so why assume that the virgin conception story is true?
Post by: Wildfire™ on Aug 04, 2011 at 11:42 AM
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 04, 2011 at 12:32 PM
:D
If it's just a fairy tale, why bother thinking up an explanation?
That's not an explanation, that's speculation.
Aliens impregnating Mary by artificial insemination more than 2,000 years ago?
Man, that's pretty wild. That's about as wild as believing that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. You'll need a lot of faith to believe either story ... :D
Why not just keep it simple. How about Mary was impregnated by some other dude. Or maybe the bible story is pure fiction, and neither Mary nor Jesus ever existed. After all, there's no evidence that Jesus ever existed, so why assume that the virgin conception story is true?
Yeah. No Jesus. No virgin birth.
Post by: tigkal on Aug 04, 2011 at 03:05 PM
Yeah. No Jesus. No virgin birth.
Now, Virgin Birth?, possible, Jesus? refer to the bible..
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 04, 2011 at 04:43 PM
Now, Virgin Birth?, possible, Jesus? refer to the bible..
who says the bible is correct?
what about the Quoran, why are we not using it? or the book of Mormons?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Now, Virgin Birth?, possible, Jesus? refer to the bible..
I prefer to say "virgin conception".
Do you only mean virgin conception, or do you also include virgin birth?
The bible says Jesus' physical body was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that's it. But Catholic doctrine extends this to great extremes.
Catholics believe that Mary was a virgin not only when Jesus was conceived, but also when Jesus was born, after Jesus was born, and throughout her entire lifetime. That's the Catholic doctrine of perpetual virginity. That's why they pray, "blessed Mary 'ever-Virgin'" in the Confiteor of the Mass.
This is a Catholic "de fide" doctrine ("de fide divina et ecclesiastica"), the denial of which is considered heresy.
That's not in the bible, of course.
But wait ... there's more ... ;)
Catholics also believe that Mary was herself virginally conceived. They call it the "Immaculate Conception", which is often mistaken to be the immaculate conception of Jesus. This is a Catholic ex cathedra doctrine (1854, Pope Pius IX), a "de fide definita".
So under Catholic doctrine, Jesus and Mary were both virginally conceived.
That's why the Feast of the Annunciation (virginal conception of Jesus) is on March 25 (they believe Jesus was born December 25, or nine months later); but the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (virginal conception of Mary) is on December 8 (they believe Mary was born on September 8, or nine months later).
None of that is in the bible, of course.
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Aug 04, 2011 at 06:14 PM
I prefer to say "virgin conception".
Do you only mean virgin conception, or do you also include virgin birth?
The bible says Jesus' physical body was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that's it. But Catholic doctrine extends this to great extremes.
Catholics believe that Mary was a virgin not only when Jesus was conceived, but also when Jesus was born, after Jesus was born, and throughout her entire lifetime. That's the Catholic doctrine of perpetual virginity. That's why they pray, "blessed Mary 'ever-Virgin'" in the Confiteor of the Mass.
This is a Catholic "de fide" doctrine ("de fide divina et ecclesiastica"), the denial of which is considered heresy.
That's not in the bible, of course.
But wait ... there's more ... ;)
Catholics also believe that Mary was herself virginally conceived. They call it the "Immaculate Conception", which is often mistaken to be the immaculate conception of Jesus. This is a Catholic ex cathedra doctrine (1854, Pope Pius IX), a "de fide definita".
So under Catholic doctrine, Jesus and Mary were both virginally conceived.
That's why the Feast of the Annunciation (virginal conception of Jesus) is on March 25 (they believe Jesus was born December 25, or nine months later); but the Feast of the Immaculate Conception (virginal conception of Mary) is on December 8 (they believe Mary was born on September 8, or nine months later).
None of that is in the bible, of course.
Then I pity Joseph and Mary's father.
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2011 at 12:23 AM
Then I pity Joseph and Mary's father.
I tried confirming this on the Catholic Encyclopedia.
It turns out that Mary was not virginally conceived, according to Catholic doctrine. My mistake. By Mary's "Immaculate Conception," they simply mean that Mary was conceived free from original sin.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
But my post about the Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is confirmed.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2011 at 11:06 AM
US polygamist leader convicted of child sex abuse
By Will Weissert
Associated Press
7:05 am | Friday, August 5th, 2011
SAN ANGELO, Texas— A Texas jury convicted polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs of child sexual assault Thursday in a case stemming from two young followers he took as brides in what his church calls “spiritual marriages.”
...Even after the judge in the case dismissed the jury, Jeffs continued asserting his right to practice his religion the way he saw fit. A self-proclaimed "living prophet" of God, Jeffs read what he claimed to be a message from God.
"I, the Lord God of heaven, call upon the court to cease this prosecution against my pure, holy way," said Jeff.
"I shall send a scourge upon the counties of prosecutorial zeal to be humbled by sickness and death," he added.
His polygamist sect has approximately 10,000 followers across North America, which promotes that plural marriage is the pathway to heaven.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/36637/us-polygamist-leader-convicted-of-child-sex-abuse
Post by: oweidah on Aug 20, 2011 at 08:35 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 20, 2011 at 11:54 PM
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CXQH1tD9L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)
No, Freemasonry is just a fraternal organization.
They are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being, but that's as far as it goes. They are not required to explain their belief because a member is free to believe as he wishes, based on his own conscience.
A member can believe in his own God and be a Freemason at the same time, because there is no separate Masonic God. They have Masonic rituals, but they have no theology. Religious discussion is prohibited, so as to safeguard a member's right to freely follow his own religious beliefs.
Opponents of Freemasonry accuse it of being a religion.
One of the most vocal opponents of Freemasonry is Catholicism. The Catholic "Quaesitum est" (1983) clarifies and re-asserts that Catholics are forbidden from joining Masonic organizations.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Aug 21, 2011 at 12:04 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 21, 2011 at 12:16 AM
The confusion arises from the fact that the Illuminati has an organizational structure that was patterned after Freemasonry.
Post by: oweidah on Aug 21, 2011 at 07:05 AM
No, Freemasonry is just a fraternal organization.
They are required to declare a belief in a Supreme Being, but that's as far as it goes. They are not required to explain their belief because a member is free to believe as he wishes, based on his own conscience.
A member can believe in his own God and be a Freemason at the same time, because there is no separate Masonic God. They have Masonic rituals, but they have no theology. Religious discussion is prohibited, so as to safeguard a member's right to freely follow his own religious beliefs.
Opponents of Freemasonry accuse it of being a religion.
One of the most vocal opponents of Freemasonry is Catholicism. The Catholic "Quaesitum est" (1983) clarifies and re-asserts that Catholics are forbidden from joining Masonic organizations.
baka ma-o.t., kung hindi pala religion ang freemasonry
nakaka-intriga lang kasi masyado pala malihim ang mga mason. at pag 30th degree na dun daw lumilinaw kung ano talaga ang freemasonry.
btw mason pala sina jprizal andresbonifacio juan luna atbp.
Post by: barrister on Aug 21, 2011 at 09:44 AM
baka ma-o.t., kung hindi pala religion ang freemasonry
Hindi naman siguro, kasi opinyon ko lang naman yon e. Ang Freemasonry ba ay religion o hindi? Depende sa tatanungin mo, ang sagot ay puwedeng:
A kind of religion --- http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WHATMAS.HTM
Definitely a religion --- http://www.evangelicaltruth.com/fmar.html
An occult religion --- http://www.godonthe.net/cme/links/masons.htm
A demonic cult --- http://web.ncf.ca/tonyc/mason.html
Religious naturalism --- http://www.ewtn.com/library/newage/masonrel.txt
etc. etc.
nakaka-intriga lang kasi masyado pala malihim ang mga mason. at pag 30th degree na dun daw lumilinaw kung ano talaga ang freemasonry.
There are only 3 degrees:
1. Entered Apprentice – the degree of an Initiate, which makes one a Freemason;
2. Fellow Craft – an intermediate degree, involved with learning; and
3. Master Mason - the "third degree", a necessity for participation in most aspects of Masonry.
Officially, there is no degree higher than Master Mason. Some Masonic bodies and orders have degrees with numbers higher than 3, but they are considered levels within the Master Mason degree ("appendant degrees"). For example, the Scottish rite has 33 degrees, with degree 4 to 33 being considered part of the 3rd degree of Master Mason.
Pag may secrets, may intriga. Natural lang naman yon. Kaya nga maraming conspiracy theories vs Masons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_conspiracy_theories
Pag 30th degree lumilitaw kung ano talaga ang Freemasonry? Ewan ko lang. Yung mga Christian anti-Masons ang madalas magsabi niyan e.
The 30th degree is called the "Knight Kadosh," described as follows: "The lesson of this degree is to be true to ourselves, to stand for what is right and just in our lives today. To believe in God, country and ourselves."
Like all Masonic degrees, the Knight Kadosh degree simply teaches a series of moral lessons by the use of allegory and symbolism. Nothing mysterious or sinister about it.
Post by: oweidah on Aug 21, 2011 at 10:46 AM
as in any secret organization, things unravel when someone from within reveals information not publicly known. or unknown to the lower ranks within the organization.
Post by: barrister on Aug 21, 2011 at 12:42 PM
http://www.cephasministry.com/alan_ex_mason.html
Akala ko may matinding exposition, kasi umalis siya sa Freemasonry after getting a "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" from his own Christian religion (maybe a Protestant group). Pero wala pa ring malinaw na masabi tungkol sa kung ano nga ba yung 30th degree.
"Areas of concern" lang ang nasasabi niya.
You can read internet posts on forums from 30th degree Masons:
http://www.thefreemason.com/community/Topic13668-5-1.aspx
The threadstarter completed the 30th degree ceremony, pero malabo pa rin sa kanya kung ano yon. You'd think he'd be thoroughly and utterly enlightened upon reaching degree 30, e nagtatanong pa pala sa ibang members kasi marami daw malabo ... ;)
Post by: JT on Sep 16, 2011 at 12:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFuelProject#p/u
Post by: krets pulpol on Oct 11, 2011 at 05:30 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/10/11/11/iglesia-ni-cristo-buys-town-south-dakota
Next would be Mike Velarde buying a town in Africa ;D
Post by: Shakatak on Oct 12, 2011 at 03:53 PM
Iglesia Ni Cristo buys town in South Dakota
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/10/11/11/iglesia-ni-cristo-buys-town-south-dakota
Next would be Mike Velarde buying a town in Africa ;D
Kaya dapat patawan na ng buwis ang lahat ng relihiyon.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 12, 2011 at 05:01 PM
Kaya dapat patawan na ng buwis ang lahat ng relihiyon.
dapat patawan din ang mga charitable institution...
Post by: alistair on Oct 12, 2011 at 09:02 PM
dapat patawan din ang mga charitable institution...If they can show that all their revenue is spent on charity/donations, then they should be able to write off everything as tax-deductible.
OTOH—with religious organizations, na non-profit kuno, we don't even have any visibility into their cashflow (cash comes in from tithes and donations, cash goes... where?).
Post by: leomarley on Oct 12, 2011 at 09:33 PM
Post by: DVD_Freak on Oct 12, 2011 at 10:18 PM
If they can show that all their revenue is spent on charity/donations, then they should be able to write off everything as tax-deductible.
OTOH—with religious organizations, na non-profit kuno, we don't even have any visibility into their cashflow (cash comes in from tithes and donations, cash goes... where?).
Actually non-profit institutions/religious organizations still have to file their income tax even in such cases that they don't have to pay anything. Technically these institutions are only exempt from real property taxes..
As for visibility, we do have a means on how to view their cash flow. These organizations are still subject to external audit and submission of their audited financial statements. You simply have to view said financial statements.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 12, 2011 at 11:34 PM
in my opinion... walang pakialam o walang karapatang magreklamo ang isang tao na hindi miyembro lalo na ang hindi nagbibigay sa kung anuman ang gawin ng isang simbahan sa pera nila. at ang isang simbahan na hindi ipinapakita sa mga miyembro (in detail) kung saan napunta ang pera nila ay isang walang kwentang simbahan.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 13, 2011 at 08:11 AM
kapag nagwaldas ng pera ang isang simbahan.... kanino sila dapat managot? sa miyembro nila, sa gobyerno o sa taong-bayan?
in my opinion... walang pakialam o walang karapatang magreklamo ang isang tao na hindi miyembro lalo na ang hindi nagbibigay sa kung anuman ang gawin ng isang simbahan sa pera nila. at ang isang simbahan na hindi ipinapakita sa mga miyembro (in detail) kung saan napunta ang pera nila ay isang walang kwentang simbahan.
Accountability.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 13, 2011 at 03:02 PM
Accountability.
yup... accountablity to their members... not on us... not on the government... these church members gave their money to the church willingly (though iyong iba natatakot lang dahil sa impiyerno)... kaya dapat gamitin nang maayos ng church leaders ang pera ng simbahan... kung masaya ang mga members ng iglesia ni kristo sa pagbili ng lupa... sino ba tayo para magreklamo... pera ng simbahan nila iyon... wala tayong karapatan magreklamo saan man nila gamitin pera nila...
Post by: RU9 on Oct 19, 2011 at 10:25 AM
From the Ten Commandments to the Psalms to the Gospels, English translations of the Bible distort the original meaning of the text: The Ten Commandments don't forbid coveting. Psalm 23 is not primarily about sheep or a shepherd. And God didn't give his only begotten son because he loved the world so much.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-ways-your-bible-tran_b_1007058.html
Post by: Vinyasa on Oct 21, 2011 at 02:27 AM
Post by: dorian_gray on Oct 21, 2011 at 05:00 AM
guys yung stigmata na movie yung kay patricia arquette fiction lang ba yun para kasing convincing napanood ko sa cable kahapon matagal na pla yun.hehe ;D.tsaka yung gospel of judas meron ba nun? ::)Stigmata and Exorcist are both documentaries.
Post by: barrister on Oct 21, 2011 at 09:45 AM
guys yung stigmata na movie yung kay patricia arquette fiction lang ba yun para kasing convincing napanood ko sa cable kahapon matagal na pla yun.hehe ;D.tsaka yung gospel of judas meron ba nun? ::)
stigmata ewan ko lang kalahati lang pinanood ko kasi ampanget di ko tinapos vhs sinoli ko na agad sa aca. gospel of judas meron yon pati gospel of mary gospel of peter gospel of thomas kahit sinong tao gusto mo basta dagdagan mo lang sa harap ng gospel of ok na.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 21, 2011 at 08:32 PM
stigmata ewan ko lang kalahati lang pinanood ko kasi ampanget di ko tinapos vhs sinoli ko na agad sa aca. gospel of judas meron yon pati gospel of mary gospel of peter gospel of thomas kahit sinong tao gusto mo basta dagdagan mo lang sa harap ng gospel of ok na.
;D
Question lang is. why was the gospel of Judas not accepted.
Post by: Wildfire™ on Oct 21, 2011 at 09:15 PM
;D
Question lang is. why was the gospel of Judas not accepted.
dahil hindi magjajive sa plano ni constantine
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 21, 2011 at 11:33 PM
dahil hindi magjajive sa plano ni constantine
Roman Catholic ba ang nag-buo ng bible?
Post by: RU9 on Oct 22, 2011 at 02:04 AM
"By the third or fourth century of the common era, it appears church leaders had settled on Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the four gospels that would be included in the canon that came to be the established Bible. There were many others that could have been included. The decision about which books to include and which to leave out was not made by any single person and probably had more to do with tradition and the perceived needs of the church at that time than any other factor."
Post by: dpogs on Oct 22, 2011 at 09:20 AM
Roman Catholic ba ang nag-buo ng bible?
hmm... group of scholars.... cannon ata tawag doon...
bible of catholics... maraming dinagdag na books... na hindi approved...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 22, 2011 at 04:29 PM
dahil hindi magjajive sa plano ni constantine
Roman Catholic ba ang nag-buo ng bible?
hmm... group of scholars.... cannon ata tawag doon...
bible of catholics... maraming dinagdag na books... na hindi approved...
Yup. Alam ko, walang connection between acceptance ng gospel of Judas and Constantine. Cannon nga ata. :D
5 books ata ang nadagdag sa old testament after Malachi. Some say that it was added because it contains phrophesies of the virgin Mary. Aphocriphic books was term used by some bible scholars.
Post by: barrister on Oct 22, 2011 at 08:42 PM
;D
Question lang is. why was the gospel of Judas not accepted.
It's not part of scripture. Malayo ang sinasabi.
The Gospel of Judas was written by a Gnostic sect in the second century A.D. No, it wasn't even written by Judas.
Kung interesado sa Gnosticism, puwedeng isama sa Gospel of Judas ang Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of the Lord, Gospel of Truth, etc.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 23, 2011 at 01:05 PM
It's not part of scripture. Malayo ang sinasabi.
The Gospel of Judas was written by a Gnostic sect in the second century A.D. No, it wasn't even written by Judas.
Kung interesado sa Gnosticism, puwedeng isama sa Gospel of Judas ang Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of the Lord, Gospel of Truth, etc.
I've heard this Gnosticism from a friend. Ang teachings ata dun, there is a higher God than our God and jesus Christ. Ang sabi sa akin, it was based on a book dug up somewhere sa Europe. Dunno the facts of Gnosticism talaga.
Post by: barrister on Oct 23, 2011 at 04:20 PM
Ang basic belief nila ay ang "secret knowledge" ("gnosis") na sila lang daw ang nakakaalam. Tapos, hinaluan ito ng mga beliefs ng Judaism at Christianity.
Example of Gnosticism na hinaluan ng Judaism:
Yung creator sa Genesis ay isang demonic god who trapped human souls in material bodies. To free the trapped soul, the higher god sent a revealer into this world to inform humans that they are actually of divine origin. Those who understand this secret knowledge (gnosis) will be able to rise above this world and return to their rightful place with the higher god.
Example ng Gnosticism na hinaluan ng Christianity:
In the Gospel of Judas, the revealer of the secret knowledge was Jesus, and only Judas could understand this secret knowledge. However, the secret required Judas to play the role of a betrayer so that Jesus could escape this world and return to the realm of Barbelo (the realm of light). Judas accomplished this mission and thus played the role of a hero instead of a villain.
Post by: RU9 on Oct 23, 2011 at 05:24 PM
Publisher: Oxford University Press | ISBN 10: 0199551235 | 2010 | PDF | 240 pages | 23 MB
It is now widely said that the four Gospels rose to prominence only after a long battle within early Christianity, a battle finally won in the fourth century, after the establishment of the Church by Constantine the Great. In Who Chose the Gospels? Charles E. Hill demolishes this claim, providing a more historically accurate, alternative account of how the Church came to acknowledge four, and only four, narratives of the life of Jesus.
Download ebook at:
http://www.filesonic.com/file/2357073221
http://www.wupload.com/file/318251770
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 23, 2011 at 08:59 PM
Malabo ang doctrines ng Gnosticism. Walang maliwanag na belief set.
Ang basic belief nila ay ang "secret knowledge" ("gnosis") na sila lang daw ang nakakaalam. Tapos, hinaluan ito ng mga beliefs ng Judaism at Christianity.
Example of Gnosticism na hinaluan ng Judaism:
Yung creator sa Genesis ay isang demonic god who trapped human souls in material bodies. To free the trapped soul, the higher god sent a revealer into this world to inform humans that they are actually of divine origin. Those who understand this secret knowledge (gnosis) will be able to rise above this world and return to their rightful place with the higher god.
Example ng Gnosticism na hinaluan ng Christianity:
In the Gospel of Judas, the revealer of the secret knowledge was Jesus, and only Judas could understand this secret knowledge. However, the secret required Judas to play the role of a betrayer so that Jesus could escape this world and return to the realm of Barbelo (the realm of light). Judas accomplished this mission and thus played the role of a hero instead of a villain.
The snake who tempted Eve was the revealer so they say.
Post by: barrister on Oct 23, 2011 at 11:16 PM
The creator god is actually Satan, who made the material world and man without authorization from the supreme god. The creator god made Adam and Eve incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, and ignorant of their origin and destiny.
The supreme god wanted to liberate man by opening his eyes to the truth. So this higher god sent the serpent (Lucifer), who told Eve to eat the forbidden fruit so that man will know the truth and become aware of their true situation and great destiny.
Those who worship the creator god are blind to the truth because they consider the serpent to be evil, when it is actually the creator god who is evil and it is the serpent who is the savior -- the liberator who brought enlightenment through the secret knowledge of the gnosis.
Sayang lang ang oras kung pag-aralan pa natin ang mga nonsense na Gnostic beliefs na ito. :D
Post by: dpogs on Oct 24, 2011 at 01:21 AM
Yes, the Gnostic view is that the serpent is the messenger of the higher god.
The creator god is actually Satan, who made the material world and man without authorization from the supreme god. The creator god made Adam and Eve incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, and ignorant of their origin and destiny.
The supreme god wanted to liberate man by opening his eyes to the truth. So this higher god sent the serpent (Lucifer), who told Eve to eat the forbidden fruit so that man will know the truth and become aware of their true situation and great destiny.
Those who worship the creator god are blind to the truth because they consider the serpent to be evil, when it is actually the creator god who is evil and it is the serpent who is the savior -- the liberator who brought enlightenment through the secret knowledge of the gnosis.
Sayang lang ang oras kung pag-aralan pa natin ang mga nonsense na Gnostic beliefs na ito. :D
mukhang mga satanista ...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2011 at 03:04 AM
Yes, the Gnostic view is that the serpent is the messenger of the higher god.
The creator god is actually Satan, who made the material world and man without authorization from the supreme god. The creator god made Adam and Eve incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, and ignorant of their origin and destiny.
The supreme god wanted to liberate man by opening his eyes to the truth. So this higher god sent the serpent (Lucifer), who told Eve to eat the forbidden fruit so that man will know the truth and become aware of their true situation and great destiny.
Those who worship the creator god are blind to the truth because they consider the serpent to be evil, when it is actually the creator god who is evil and it is the serpent who is the savior -- the liberator who brought enlightenment through the secret knowledge of the gnosis.
Sayang lang ang oras kung pag-aralan pa natin ang mga nonsense na Gnostic beliefs na ito. :D
Yeah. Napag-usapan lang.
Btw, my favorite verse is Ephesians 2:8-10. ;D A good summary for me. Andun na ang salvation. May pre-destination pa. Calvinism. :D
Post by: Verbl Kint on Oct 24, 2011 at 06:08 AM
No, it wasn't even written by Judas.
A bit OT:
The name "Judas" has been getting a bad rap since the 1st century, no thanks to the alleged traitor, Judas Iscariot. It used to be a revered name amongst the Jews during the time of Christ, thanks to Judas Maccabeus.
In fact, Hanukkah is celebrated to this day thanks to the Maccabees.
Post by: barrister on Oct 24, 2011 at 09:52 AM
The usual English rendering is actually "Judah Maccabee" (Yehudhah HamMakabi, or Judah the Hammer). "Judas Maccabeus" is the less common rendering, popularized by an oratorio by Handel with the same title.
In English, saying "Judas" without anything more is understood to refer to Judas Iscariot. If you're referring to another Judas, you have to state the name completely, as in "Judas Thomas Didymus," "Judas Barsabbas," "Judas Thaddaeus," etc.
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Oct 24, 2011 at 12:27 PM
Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy by C. E. Hill
Publisher: Oxford University Press | ISBN 10: 0199551235 | 2010 | PDF | 240 pages | 23 MB
It is now widely said that the four Gospels rose to prominence only after a long battle within early Christianity, a battle finally won in the fourth century, after the establishment of the Church by Constantine the Great. In Who Chose the Gospels? Charles E. Hill demolishes this claim, providing a more historically accurate, alternative account of how the Church came to acknowledge four, and only four, narratives of the life of Jesus.
Download ebook at:
http://www.filesonic.com/file/2357073221
http://www.wupload.com/file/318251770
This is a legitimate concern for those who do not believe in the Bible.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2011 at 08:39 PM
Barabbas' name appears as bar-Abbas in the Greek texts. It is derived ultimately from the Aramaic בר-אבא, Bar-abbâ, "son of the father"
Post by: ezkerovalatzky on Oct 25, 2011 at 08:40 AM
Cut & paste ko lang from wiki, re the Bar from Barabbas:
Barabbas' name appears as bar-Abbas in the Greek texts. It is derived ultimately from the Aramaic בר-אבא, Bar-abbâ, "son of the father"
So the expression "Anak ka ng tatay mo!" literally means Barabbas. ;)
Post by: rusty on Oct 28, 2011 at 08:35 PM
By Michelle Boorstein,
English-speaking Catholics are bracing for the biggest changes to their Mass since the 1960s, a shift some leaders warn could cause “ritual whiplash.”
The overhaul, which will become mandatory Nov. 27, is aimed at unifying the more than 1 billion Catholics worldwide with a translation that is as close as possible to the original Latin version. It allows for less independence and diversity of interpretation in a church that in recent decades has tried to retain more control over how Catholicism is defined.
Recent popes have emphasized orthodoxy and hierarchy, particularly in the West, where religious identity is increasingly fluid. Catholic hospitals and schools have been required to more clearly espouse church teachings, and Pope Benedict XVI has stressed the sole truth of Catholicism over other faiths, even declining this month to pray with Hindus, Jews and others at an interreligious event.
The new translation changes the majority of sentences in the Mass. The prayers and call-and-response dialogue between the priest and the congregation are different, transforming the dialogue that Catholics under 40 have used in church their entire lives. Some leaders warn that the shift could cause “ritual whiplash” among those accustomed to a worship script so familiar that most recite it from memory.
Reaction to the changes has been intense, in some ways fueling a Catholic culture war that began when the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s imposed far more sweeping changes designed to open up and modernize the church. Some traditionalists say the new translation of the ritual is richer and — because it’s less conversational — more mysterious and spiritual.
“At first I thought it was an affront, the Vatican coming down on us. But after thinking about it, I see it as something that will bring us all back toward the center,” said Emily Strand, 35, a former campus minister at the University of Dayton who has attended Mass regularly throughout her life. “Vatican II was an excuse for people to do whatever they wanted with the liturgy.”
But more modern Catholics, and some who are already disaffected, say the new language is an awkward imposition that will distance people from the church. Erie, Pa., Bishop Donald Trautman says that such words as “consubstantial” and “chalice” and a Jesus “born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin” won’t help Catholics get closer to God.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/10/28/SocialIssues-Religion-Immigration/Graphics/w-mass.jpg)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ritual-whiplash-ahead-catholics-mass-liturgy-changing/2011/10/25/gIQAzcNRNM_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Post by: GC on Oct 29, 2011 at 06:19 PM
Catholics’ Mass liturgy changing; ‘ritual whiplash’ ahead?
By Michelle Boorstein,
English-speaking Catholics are bracing for the biggest changes to their Mass since the 1960s, a shift some leaders warn could cause “ritual whiplash.”
The overhaul, which will become mandatory Nov. 27, is aimed at unifying the more than 1 billion Catholics worldwide with a translation that is as close as possible to the original Latin version. It allows for less independence and diversity of interpretation in a church that in recent decades has tried to retain more control over how Catholicism is defined.
Recent popes have emphasized orthodoxy and hierarchy, particularly in the West, where religious identity is increasingly fluid. Catholic hospitals and schools have been required to more clearly espouse church teachings, and Pope Benedict XVI has stressed the sole truth of Catholicism over other faiths, even declining this month to pray with Hindus, Jews and others at an interreligious event.
The new translation changes the majority of sentences in the Mass. The prayers and call-and-response dialogue between the priest and the congregation are different, transforming the dialogue that Catholics under 40 have used in church their entire lives. Some leaders warn that the shift could cause “ritual whiplash” among those accustomed to a worship script so familiar that most recite it from memory.
Reaction to the changes has been intense, in some ways fueling a Catholic culture war that began when the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s imposed far more sweeping changes designed to open up and modernize the church. Some traditionalists say the new translation of the ritual is richer and — because it’s less conversational — more mysterious and spiritual.
“At first I thought it was an affront, the Vatican coming down on us. But after thinking about it, I see it as something that will bring us all back toward the center,” said Emily Strand, 35, a former campus minister at the University of Dayton who has attended Mass regularly throughout her life. “Vatican II was an excuse for people to do whatever they wanted with the liturgy.”
But more modern Catholics, and some who are already disaffected, say the new language is an awkward imposition that will distance people from the church. Erie, Pa., Bishop Donald Trautman says that such words as “consubstantial” and “chalice” and a Jesus “born ineffably of the inviolate Virgin” won’t help Catholics get closer to God.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/10/28/SocialIssues-Religion-Immigration/Graphics/w-mass.jpg)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ritual-whiplash-ahead-catholics-mass-liturgy-changing/2011/10/25/gIQAzcNRNM_story.html?hpid=z3&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Aahh! Liberals and progressives, still living in the 60's. When will they all die? The winds are changing and the pendulum is swinging back: the ineffable beauty of worship, sense of the sacred and true Catholic identity are being revived and now they are afraid that their banal liturgies, on the spot products, they have created will soon die.
Afraid of the new translation? Just use LATIN.
Post by: sharkey360 on Oct 31, 2011 at 06:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSnJi6SpzLo
Post by: GC on Oct 31, 2011 at 08:04 AM
What do you think about Catholic dictatorship emphasized by the guy in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSnJi6SpzLo
I know most of you would disagree, but with rate the world is going, i think what he says is only common sense. Careful analysis of democracy one would see its flaw:
1. if majority are ignorant voters
2. if majority are self-centered voters who doesn't care about the common good as long as they have "freedom" and "liberty" to do what they want
3. unqualified are allowed to run for office, either in the legislature or executive. (By unqualified doesn't necessary equate to having no educational degrees, but skills)
Democracy then becomes mob rule and thus instead of building society, it actually destroys it. It is in this scenario that a BENEVOLENT dictatorship is a solution to stop the destruction of culture and society by promoting the COMMON GOOD and governing with COMMON SENSE. The problem is, we need to find the right person for the job.
Post by: leomarley on Oct 31, 2011 at 08:47 AM
What do you think about Catholic dictatorship emphasized by the guy in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSnJi6SpzLo
man, what a douche that guy is. even has a douche-y biebster haircut.
who is he to say what is moral and what is not? people like this are scary. they promote their own brand of morality much like Hitler was when the Nazis started to rise in Germany.
Post by: leomarley on Oct 31, 2011 at 08:50 AM
I know most of you would disagree, but with rate the world is going, i think what he says is only common sense. Careful analysis of democracy one would see its flaw:
1. if majority are ignorant voters
2. if majority are self-centered voters who doesn't care about the common good as long as they have "freedom" and "liberty" to do what they want
3. unqualified are allowed to run for office, either in the legislature or executive. (By unqualified doesn't necessary equate to having no educational degrees, but skills)
Democracy then becomes mob rule and thus instead of building society, it actually destroys it. It is in this scenario that a BENEVOLENT dictatorship is a solution to stop the destruction of culture and society by promoting the COMMON GOOD and governing with COMMON SENSE. The problem is, we need to find the right person for the job.
he's not only talking about dictatorship per se but more specifically a Catholic Dictatorship. i wouldn't wanna be around if that happens. a Catholic Dictatorship is a scary thought.
Post by: barrister on Oct 31, 2011 at 09:18 AM
What do you think about Catholic dictatorship emphasized by the guy in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSnJi6SpzLo
Hindi naman bago yan.
The world already had such a system: The Catholic Monarchs (los Reyes Católicos) - Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II.
The result? -- The Alhambra Decree and the Spanish Inquisition.
================================
he's not only talking about dictatorship per se but more specifically a Catholic Dictatorship. i wouldn't wanna be around if that happens. a Catholic Dictatorship is a scary thought.
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/inquisition-wheel.jpg)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 01, 2011 at 05:09 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on Nov 01, 2011 at 05:51 PM
I know most of you would disagree, but with rate the world is going, i think what he says is only common sense. Careful analysis of democracy one would see its flaw:
1. if majority are ignorant voters
2. if majority are self-centered voters who doesn't care about the common good as long as they have "freedom" and "liberty" to do what they want
3. unqualified are allowed to run for office, either in the legislature or executive. (By unqualified doesn't necessary equate to having no educational degrees, but skills)
Democracy then becomes mob rule and thus instead of building society, it actually destroys it. It is in this scenario that a BENEVOLENT dictatorship is a solution to stop the destruction of culture and society by promoting the COMMON GOOD and governing with COMMON SENSE. The problem is, we need to find the right person for the job.
History shows that dictatorships often come with human rights violations, greed, theft and many other bad things. Even with religion at its very core, dictatorship will still come with abuses.
Post by: barrister on Nov 01, 2011 at 11:42 PM
Teka, Hebrew and Hebrew Aramic ang original language ng bible di ba?
No, it's Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
Old Testament - Almost entirely in Hebrew. A few chapters in Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah are in Aramaic.
New Testament - Entirely in Greek.
Post by: GC on Nov 02, 2011 at 09:58 AM
History shows that dictatorships often come with human rights violations, greed, theft and many other bad things. Even with religion at its very core, dictatorship will still come with abuses.
The keyword is BENEVOLENT sir. :-)
Post by: sharkey360 on Nov 02, 2011 at 10:47 AM
The keyword is BENEVOLENT sir. :-)
Try using that against historical facts.
Post by: sharkey360 on Nov 02, 2011 at 10:52 AM
man, what a douche that guy is. even has a douche-y biebster haircut.
who is he to say what is moral and what is not? people like this are scary. they promote their own brand of morality much like Hitler was when the Nazis started to rise in Germany.
Extremism is a sickness. Benevolent this and that. Impose this and that. Etc.
Post by: sharkey360 on Nov 02, 2011 at 06:56 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l334iypqaH1qbgb2do1_400.jpg)
Post by: sharkey360 on Nov 02, 2011 at 11:04 PM
(http://www.gmanews.tv/webpics/lifestyle/dongor.jpg)
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/237085/pinoy-abroad/us-based-pinoy-priest-caught-with-child-porn-may-be-hiding-in-phl
Post by: barrister on Nov 02, 2011 at 11:12 PM
Any comments about this?
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l334iypqaH1qbgb2do1_400.jpg)
The artwork depicts the feeding of the multitudes.
1. "The Feeding of the 5,000" is narrated in all four canonical gospels (Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15.
When Jesus heard that John the Baptist had been killed, he went to a solitary place by boat, and the crowds followed him. As evening approached, the disciples asked Jesus to send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food. Jesus told the disciples to give them something to eat, but they only had five loaves of bread and two fish.
Jesus performed a miracle by feeding the 5,000 using only the five loaves and two fish. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
2. Another incident, "The Feeding of the 4,000", is narrated in Mark 8:1-9 and Matthew 15:32-39.
A large crowd was following Jesus. He called his disciples to him and said, "... they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."
His disciples, who only had seven loaves of bread and a few small fish, said: "Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?"
Jesus fed the 4,000 using only the seven loaves and few fish. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
========================
You can see clearly that this is not a depiction of socialism.
Yes, the multitudes were poor people. But did Jesus feed them solely because they were poor?
No. Jesus fed them because they were in the wilderness. They were so far away from the nearest village that they would likely faint on the way if they were to travel on foot to buy some food.
The bible does not advocate feeding the lazy. In fact, it teaches the opposite. In Thessalonians, Paul said:
7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. (2 Thess 3:7-10)
If you don't want to work, you shouldn't eat for free. The rule applies not only to church members, but also to church leaders.
Post by: bananabond on Nov 07, 2011 at 08:30 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 07, 2011 at 09:56 PM
sir barister what are your thoughts on tithing? and how come you dont belong to a specific group or sect inspitw your profound knowledge in christianity?
+1. ;D
Post by: barrister on Nov 07, 2011 at 10:18 PM
and how come you dont belong to a specific group or sect inspitw your profound knowledge in christianity?
If I find a doctrine I don't agree with, I don't join. Every sect I studied always had some loopy doctrine, so I never joined any.
sir barister what are your thoughts on tithing?
The tithe was commanded to the ancient Israelites, not to Christians.
Today's pastors insist that tithes apply to Christians as well. The reason is obvious --- tithes are a lot of money, that's why ;).
Post by: alistair on Nov 08, 2011 at 08:09 AM
If I find a doctrine I don't agree with, I don't join. Every sect I studied always had some loopy doctrine, so I never joined any.Combining the two statements above begs the question:
Today's pastors insist that tithes apply to Christians as well. The reason is obvious --- tithes are a lot of money, that's why ;).
So how come you haven't formed your own Christian sect? I hear there's a lot of money to be made. ;)
Post by: barrister on Nov 08, 2011 at 11:09 AM
So how come you haven't formed your own Christian sect? I hear there's a lot of money to be made. ;)
The thought has crossed my mind. ;)
But I don't think I'm cut out to be a religious leader ... I'm too honest ... :D
Post by: RU9 on Nov 08, 2011 at 12:49 PM
The thought has crossed my mind. ;)
But I don't think I'm cut out to be a religious leader ... I'm too honest ... :D
What is the basis of your belief in the bible? Is it faith alone or is there a physical dimension?
Post by: barrister on Nov 08, 2011 at 01:56 PM
I'm not one of those loonies who brag that they allegedly can prove that the bible is the Word of God.
Post by: CMac on Nov 08, 2011 at 02:13 PM
But I don't think I'm cut out to be a religious leader ... I'm too honest ... :D
i thought it's the complete opposite for lawyers? ;D biro lang boss.
Post by: barrister on Nov 08, 2011 at 02:14 PM
i thought it's the complete opposite for lawyers? ;D biro lang boss.
I knew someone would say that ... :D
Post by: GC on Jan 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 12, 2012 at 07:39 AM
Today, Google Doodle marks the 374th birth anniversary of the FATHER OF GEOLOGY. Guess who he is.
Steno?
Post by: sharkey360 on Jan 12, 2012 at 09:05 AM
From humble beginnings in southwest Mexico, Gabino Zavala entered the priesthood and embarked on a remarkable journey that landed him squarely in the corner offices of the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese.
An auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, he oversaw the church's vast San Gabriel region, a diverse community considered vital to the future of the church. Then, from his pulpit, he became a forceful champion for social and economic justice.
Popular and approachable, Zavala was widely known by his first name. To many, that sensibility made the Vatican's announcement Wednesday unthinkable: For more than a decade, Zavala had harbored a dark secret. He is the father, church officials said, of two children and had resigned his post.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/05/local/la-me-catholic-resign-20120105
Post by: bananabond on Feb 20, 2012 at 01:56 PM
.....It is a sign between me and the Israelites forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'" -Exodus 31:17
Post by: barrister on Feb 21, 2012 at 12:33 AM
No, hindi napapagod si God the Father.
Para mapagod na katulad ng tao, kailangan ng physical body. Kung walang physical body, walang mapapagod.
=====================
"...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested..."
"Rested" means "ceased" or "stopped." On the 7th day, God stopped. It doesn't mean God rested because He was tired; it simply means He stopped because He was finished.
In a court trial, when the prosecution lawyer says to the judge, "the prosecution rests," it doesn't mean that the prosecution rests because it's tired. It simply means the prosecution stops presenting evidence because they're finished with the presentation of their evidence.
"...and was refreshed."
The word "refreshed" (Hebrew "naphash") literally means to breathe or to be breathed upon. Figuratively, it means refreshed as if by a current of air. As used in Exodus 31:17, it refers to the feeling of satisfaction when the maker sees his completed work.
That's why Gen. 1:31 says, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." It was not a physical rest after a physical tiredness that refreshed God. What was refreshing to God was simply seeing that His creation was very good.
Post by: Quitacet on Feb 22, 2012 at 05:42 PM
barrister, what is your view of heaven? Does it exist now, in terms of when a person dies his soul immediately go to there?
The reason I asked is because there are passages in the Bible like in Revelations that say "iluluwal ng dagat ang lahat ng mga nangamatay sa kanya..." which if interpreted literally means that all souls of those who died (regardless when) are awaiting that moment.
Post by: barrister on Feb 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM
barrister, what is your view of heaven? Does it exist now, in terms of when a person dies his soul immediately go to there?
My view of heaven conforms with the biblical view.
In the bible, there are three heavens:
(a) The area within the earth's atmosphere (eg: fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Rev. 19:17);
(b) The area outside the earth's atmosphere (eg: I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, Gen. 22:17); and
(c) The spiritual heaven where God dwells (the LORD's throne is in heaven, Ps. 11:4).
Does the third heaven exist now? --- Yes, of course it does.
When a person dies, does he immediately go to the third heaven? --- No. When a person dies, he is unconscious. All he does is await the resurrection. The book of Revelation has a timeline of events, which states that there will be a first resurrection and a second resurrection.
barrister, what is your view of heaven? Does it exist now, in terms of when a person dies his soul immediately
The reason I asked is because there are passages in the Bible like in Revelations that say "iluluwal ng dagat ang lahat ng mga nangamatay sa kanya..." which if interpreted literally means that all souls of those who died (regardless when) are awaiting that moment.
That's right.
You're referring to Rev. 20:12. That part is about the second resurrection.
Sa second resurrection, mabubuhay uli ang mga namatay na hindi nakasama sa first resurrection. Kung nalibing siya sa lupa, babangon uli siya mula sa lupa. Kung namatay siya nang lumubog ang barkong sinasakyan, kasama siya sa sinasabi mong "iluluwal ng dagat ang lahat ng mga nangamatay sa kanya..."
Ang timeline, babalik si Kristo dito sa lupa, then Armageddon. After Satan is defeated in Armageddon, Christ rules the world, and the first resurrection happens. After Christ rules the world for 1,000 years, the second resurrection, then the Judgment.
Ang lahat ng Kristiyano ay naghihintay ng pagbabalik ni Kristo sa lupa. Kung ang mga namatay ay pupunta pala agad sa langit, bakit pa babalik dito si Kristo? Does that make sense to you? :D
Sana hinintay na lang tayo ni Kristo sa langit kung instantly ay makakarating din naman pala tayo doon.
Post by: JT on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:18 AM
So what happens after death?
Within the Christian faith, there is a significant amount of confusion regarding what happens after death. Some hold that after death, everyone “sleeps” until the final judgment, after which everyone will be sent to heaven or hell. Others believe that at the moment of death, people are instantly judged and sent to their eternal destinations. Still others claim that when people die, their souls/spirits are sent to a “temporary” heaven or hell, to await the final resurrection, the final judgment, and then the finality of their eternal destination. So, what exactly does the Bible say happens after death?
First, for the believer in Jesus Christ, the Bible tells us that after death believers’ souls/spirits are taken to heaven, because their sins are forgiven by having received Christ as Savior (John 3:16, 18, 36). For believers, death is to be “away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23). However, passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 describe believers being resurrected and given glorified bodies. If believers go to be with Christ immediately after death, what is the purpose of this resurrection? It seems that while the souls/spirits of believers go to be with Christ immediately after death, the physical body remains in the grave “sleeping.” At the resurrection of believers, the physical body is resurrected, glorified, and then reunited with the soul/spirit. This reunited and glorified body-soul-spirit will be the possession of believers for eternity in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21-22).
Second, for those who do not receive Jesus Christ as Savior, death means everlasting punishment. However, similar to the destiny of believers, unbelievers also seem to be sent immediately to a temporary holding place, to await their final resurrection, judgment, and eternal destiny. Luke 16:22-23 describes a rich man being tormented immediately after death. Revelation 20:11-15 describes all the unbelieving dead being resurrected, judged at the great white throne, and then being cast into the lake of fire. Unbelievers, then, are not sent to hell (the lake of fire) immediately after death, but rather are in a temporary realm of judgment and condemnation. However, even though unbelievers are not instantly sent to the lake of fire, their immediate fate after death is not a pleasant one. The rich man cried out, “I am in agony in this fire” (Luke 16:24).
Therefore, after death, a person resides in a “temporary” heaven or hell. After this temporary realm, at the final resurrection, a person’s eternal destiny will not change. The precise “location” of that eternal destiny is what changes. Believers will ultimately be granted entrance into the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1). Unbelievers will ultimately be sent to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). These are the final, eternal destinations of all people—based entirely on whether or not they had trusted Jesus Christ alone for salvation (Matthew 25:46; John 3:36).
Hope it clarifies.
Post by: Clondalkin on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Post by: JT on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM
What's the guideline when to interpret a certain word, phrase, passage, sentence or paragraphy literally or figuratively or something else?
I suggest you read the passages. Some are clear and common sense. For some, get the whole context by also reading the verse before, after and the concurrence verses which is also indicated in your bible.
Consider Luke 16:24 where it is clear that the rich man died and went straight to hell and being punished. Now this is not a parable since Jesus says a certain rich man and also the name Abraham which is real is mentioned.
Post by: Quitacet on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Heaven and hell are very complex biblical topics. I don't want to bore you with the details that you might not be interested in, so I'll just discuss basics.
My view of heaven conforms with the biblical view.
In the bible, there are three heavens:
(a) The area within the earth's atmosphere (eg: fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Rev. 19:17);
(b) The area outside the earth's atmosphere (eg: I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, Gen. 22:17); and
(c) The spiritual heaven where God dwells (the LORD's throne is in heaven, Ps. 11:4).
Does the third heaven exist now? --- Yes, of course it does.
When a person dies, does he immediately go to the third heaven? --- No. When a person dies, he is unconscious. All he does is await the resurrection. The book of Revelation has a timeline of events, which states that there will be a first resurrection and a second resurrection.
That's right.
You're referring to Rev. 20:12. That part is about the second resurrection.
Sa second resurrection, mabubuhay uli ang mga namatay na hindi nakasama sa first resurrection. Kung nalibing siya sa lupa, babangon uli siya mula sa lupa. Kung namatay siya nang lumubog ang barkong sinasakyan, kasama siya sa sinasabi mong "iluluwal ng dagat ang lahat ng mga nangamatay sa kanya..."
Ang timeline, babalik si Kristo dito sa lupa, then Armageddon. After Satan is defeated in Armageddon, Christ rules the world, and the first resurrection happens. After Christ rules the world for 1,000 years, the second resurrection, then the Judgment.
Ang lahat ng Kristiyano ay naghihintay ng pagbabalik ni Kristo sa lupa. Kung ang mga namatay ay pupunta pala agad sa langit, bakit pa babalik dito si Kristo? Does that make sense to you? :D
Sana hinintay na lang tayo ni Kristo sa langit kung instantly ay makakarating din naman pala tayo doon.
It perfectly makes sense, barrister.
Plus, God will be biased to those who died firsts because they will get to enjoy heaven longer lol
Seriously, thanks for your answer. I appreciate it
Post by: barrister on Feb 23, 2012 at 03:28 PM
What's the guideline when to interpret a certain word, phrase, passage, sentence or paragraphy literally or figuratively or something else?
The guideline is to take the bible as a whole. The correct interpretation is that which will harmonize all parts of the bible. Therefore, the reader must not invent his own interpretation. All he has to do is to allow scripture to interpret itself.
Let's take the example of the story of Lazarus and the rich man, on Luke 16:19-31, often cited as proof that we go to heaven immediately upon death:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&version=KJV
Jesus narrated this story. Now, did this story really happen, or was it just a parable? My view is that it is simply a parable.
If the story really happened, then it means that Lazarus was already in heaven at the time Jesus was speaking. That view will run contrary to what the bible teaches, which is that nobody has ever gone into heaven except Christ. Thus, Jesus said in the bible:
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man (John 3:13)
If we believe that the spirits of the dead go to heaven immediately, then at least Adam, Lazarus, Job, Moses and Abaraham should already be there. Yet what did Jesus say about it? He said nobody has ever gone into heaven except Himself.
A very important principle in Christianity is that Christ is first and will always be first when compared to man. The bible calls Him the "firstfuits" of those who had fallen asleep. Therefore, if anyone will resurrect, then it must be Christ who should be first. The bible says:
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15:20-23)
Remember that Christ is the firstfruits. He is the first one who conquers death. Those who belong to Him will also conquer death, but only after His second coming. Christ has not yet returned; therefore nobody has arisen, and nobody has gone to heaven until now.
Ang interpretation ng iba, si Lazarus daw nasa langit na, nauna pa kay Kristo. That would only make sense if we deny that Christ is the firstfruits. But if we take the bible as a whole and accept the truth of the firstfruits principle, then the only option would be to consider the story of Lazarus and the rich man to be a parable and nothing more.
Post by: JT on Feb 23, 2012 at 03:44 PM
(http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/timeline.jpg)
Post by: JT on Feb 23, 2012 at 04:13 PM
The guideline is to take the bible as a whole. The correct interpretation is that which will harmonize all parts of the bible. Therefore, the reader must not invent his own interpretation. All he has to do is to allow scripture to interpret itself.I totally agree. Thats why it is important to check the verses before and after as well as the reference/concurring verses indicated in the bible.
Let's take the example of the story of Lazarus and the rich man, on Luke 16:19-31, often cited as proof that we go to heaven immediately upon death:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016:19-31&version=KJV
Jesus narrated this story. Now, did this story really happen, or was it just a parable? My view is that it is simply a parable.
If the story really happened, then it means that Lazarus was already in heaven at the time Jesus was speaking. That view will run contrary to what the bible teaches, which is that nobody has ever gone into heaven except Christ. Thus, Jesus said in the bible:
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man (John 3:13)
If we believe that the spirits of the dead go to heaven immediately, then at least Adam, Lazarus, Job, Moses and Abaraham should already be there. Yet what did Jesus say about it? He said nobody has ever gone into heaven except Himself.
Bible says Lazarus went to Abraham’s Bosom (not heaven) and the rich man in Hades. Notice that the rich man brothers are still alive so its not yet resurrection of the dead. The mere fact that there is consciousness of comforting (by lazarus) and suffering (by rich man) indicates whether it’s a parable or not, sleeping after you die does not fit in. It is the soul that goes to hades (temporary hell) or to paradise (temporary heaven). When Jesus resurrected, He has taken the captives (in Abraham's bosom) and brought them to paradise. Remember Jesus promised the thief besides him on cross that “Today you will be with me in paradise”. It is your soul that has consciousness and feels pain, your body is just a vessel kaya kahit saktan mo ang bangkay eh din a yun magre-response.
Man is a triune being, spirit, soul and body. When u die, the spirit goes back to God. In the great white throne judgement, the body will be resurrected and re-united with the soul. As both will be sent to our final destination either in the Lake of Fire or will be with God forever in the new heaven and new earth.
A very important principle in Christianity is that Christ is first and will always be first when compared to man. The bible calls Him the "firstfuits" of those who had fallen asleep. Therefore, if anyone will resurrect, then it must be Christ who should be first. The bible says:
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15:20-23)
Remember that Christ is the firstfruits. He is the first one who conquers death. Those who belong to Him will also conquer death, but only after His second coming. Christ has not yet returned; therefore nobody has arisen, and nobody has gone to heaven until now.
Ang interpretation ng iba, si Lazarus daw nasa langit na, nauna pa kay Kristo. That would only make sense if we deny that Christ is the firstfruits. But if we take the bible as a whole and accept the truth of the firstfruits principle, then the only option would be to consider the story of Lazarus and the rich man to be a parable and nothing more.
For this premise, how would you explain Lazarus and the other people that jesus has raised from the dead?
Post by: barrister on Feb 23, 2012 at 04:38 PM
Post by: JT on Feb 23, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Jesus raised them from the dead unchanged. They did not go to heaven. They continued to live on earth as before. Eventually, they died again.
How about Elijah and Enoch which was taken into heaven without seeing death? or Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration?
Post by: barrister on Feb 23, 2012 at 05:06 PM
How about Elijah and Enoch which was taken into heaven without seeing death?
There are 3 heavens. The verse is not referring to the third heaven because Jesus himself said 900 years later that no one has ever gone into heaven except himself (John 3:13). Unless of course you want to remove John 3:13 from the bible.
The bible simply says that Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind and was seen no more. His body was taken up into the atmosphere, taken down again to earth in a hidden location, and his body was not found again. That's all the information the bible supplies and it is not for us to speculate about information not provided. Ikaw naman pala, whirlwind lang, dere-derecho na agad sa third heaven. Kung whirlwind lang, e di sa first heaven lang yon (atmosphere), ni hindi nga aabot sa second heaven yon (outer space).
You mean Enoch did not die? Hebrews 11 mentions Enoch, along with other men of faith, and then stated in verse 13: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Yes, they all died, including Enoch.
Hebrews 11:5 says, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him..."
Enoch "should not see death." But he died. What's the difference? Answer it if you think you're such an expert.
The verse does not say Enoch went to heaven, much less the third heaven. It simply says he was translated. According to Strong's, Thayer's and Bullinger's Greek Lexicons, "translate" means "to put or place in another place, to transport, to transfer." It simply means that his body was not found because it was transported to another place, not because he was made immortal.
=======================
How about Elijah and Enoch which was taken into heaven without seeing death? or Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration?
You added Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration in an edited post.
As I said, I will no longer answer your questions. But rest assured that your transfiguration question is very easy to answer.
Post by: Quitacet on Feb 23, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Jesus raised them from the dead unchanged. They did not go to heaven. They continued to live on earth as before. Eventually, they died again.
Isn't it that it was the "spirit" that Jesus asked from God to be brought back so that Lazarus may rise from the dead?
AFAIK, spirit is different from the "soul"
My view is that it's the soul who will go to Heaven to receive eternal life. Spirit is the breath of life (buhay) and Flesh is what we have now together with the soul and spirit.
Many people oftentimes see "spirit" and "soul" as one and the same.
That's why I'm perfectly sold to the idea that no soul of man is on heaven right now.
This is also the reason why I don't believe in "Saints" (no offense to those who do. It's just a matter of personal belief)
Post by: barrister on Feb 23, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Spirit and soul are also very difficult concepts. What makes them difficult is because the English words used in the translations do not accurately reflect the original meaning.
Yes, there is a difference between soul and spirit. In the bible, the spirit is the breath of life. When the spirit combines with the body, the result is the soul.
That is why Gen. 2:7 says: And 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.
Therefore, the body without spirit is dead; when the spirit which comes from God combines with the body, the result is a soul, which is simply body + spirit.
Post by: Quitacet on Feb 23, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Spirit and soul are also very difficult concepts. What makes them difficult is because the English words used in the translations do not accurately reflect the original meaning.
Yes, there is a difference between soul and spirit. In the bible, the spirit is the breath of life. When the spirit combines with the body, the result is the soul.
That is why Gen. 2:7 says: And 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.
Therefore, the body without spirit is dead; when the spirit which comes from God combines with the body, the result is a soul, which is simply body + spirit.
I thought spirit and soul reside in the body. When a man dies, God claim the spirit (remember when Jesus asked for Lazarus' spirit back), the Flesh rots and the soul awaits judgement.
In first Thessalonian, it is said:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 King James Version (KJV)
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
At pakabanalin kayong lubos ng Dios din ng kapayapaan; at ang inyong espiritu at kaluluwa at katawan ay ingatang buo, na walang kapintasan sa pagparito ng ating Panginoong Jesucristo.
Post by: bananabond on Feb 23, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Easy lang yan sir.
No, hindi napapagod si God the Father.
Para mapagod na katulad ng tao, kailangan ng physical body. Kung walang physical body, walang mapapagod.
=====================
"...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested..."
"Rested" means "ceased" or "stopped." On the 7th day, God stopped. It doesn't mean God rested because He was tired; it simply means He stopped because He was finished.
In a court trial, when the prosecution lawyer says to the judge, "the prosecution rests," it doesn't mean that the prosecution rests because it's tired. It simply means the prosecution stops presenting evidence because they're finished with the presentation of their evidence.
"...and was refreshed."
The word "refreshed" (Hebrew "naphash") literally means to breathe or to be breathed upon. Figuratively, it means refreshed as if by a current of air. As used in Exodus 31:17, it refers to the feeling of satisfaction when the maker sees his completed work.
That's why Gen. 1:31 says, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." It was not a physical rest after a physical tiredness that refreshed God. What was refreshing to God was simply seeing that His creation was very good.
thanks for the answer. dalawa kasi tinanonagn ko sa office isang born again and isang dating daan. same answer kayo ng born again but you were able to explain it better. hindi kasi positive yung concept na napapagod si god, that would make him not omnipotent :) thanks again!
Post by: barrister on Feb 23, 2012 at 09:11 PM
I thought spirit and soul reside in the body. When a man dies, God claim the spirit (remember when Jesus asked for Lazarus' spirit back), the Flesh rots and the soul awaits judgement.
It's a very complex topic. I'm not saying that your views are wrong; I'm just saying that my view is slightly different.
Yes, spirit and soul reside in the body while a person is alive. The body and spirit together are the living soul. When a person is alive, he has a soul, which is the seat of his intellect, emotions, etc.
When a person dies, the spirit leaves the body; the body dies and returns to dust. Consequently, he no longer has a soul, because a person cannot have a mind, personality, will, intellect and emotions if the body is dead. However, his spirit remains.
After death, the spirit leaves the body and returns to God until the coming of the resurrection. During the first resurrection, the saved will resurrect with spiritual bodies. But the damned will resurrect with physical bodies during the second resurrection for the Judgment. That's why Rev. 20:19 says:
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
For the second resurrection, the body that returned to dust is reconstructed, the spirit returns to the restored body, and the soul reappears becase the body has reunited with the spirit. Even if the body decomposed under the seas, the remains will still be reconstructed, the body will come out from the sea, and the spirit will still reunite with the body.
Therefore, there is a soul only while a person is alive. There is no soul when a person is dead.
In first Thessalonian, it is said:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 King James Version (KJV)
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
At pakabanalin kayong lubos ng Dios din ng kapayapaan; at ang inyong espiritu at kaluluwa at katawan ay ingatang buo, na walang kapintasan sa pagparito ng ating Panginoong Jesucristo.
We should be careful in analyzing 1 Thessalonians, because the author Paul thought that he and his companions would still be alive when Christ returns, and it should be read in that context.
Note Paul's words in 1 Thess. 4:15-17
15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
But Paul was mistaken. He and his followers died before Christ could return. It is in that light that 1 Thess. 5:23 should be understood.
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thess. 5:23)
How can Paul be talking about preserving the body, when their bodies shall have turned to dust by the time Christ returns? That's the problem with the verse --- it applies to those who would be alive at the time of Christ's return, but it would not apply to those who had long been dead.
But Paul wrote that because he was under the impression that they would still be alive when Christ returns. Based on that, it would make sense that he and his members would strive to preserve their body, spirit and soul blameless until the coming of Christ.
And how would they preserve body, spirit and soul blameless? Paul instructs:
14Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. 15See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. 16Rejoice evermore. 17Pray without ceasing. 18In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 19Quench not the Spirit. 20Despise not prophesyings. 21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22Abstain from all appearance of evil. (1 Thess 5:14-22)
That's the backgrouder for the next verse:
23And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thess 5:14-22)
Post by: RU9 on Feb 23, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Is he the one who got lucky in getting the correct version of the bible and interpreting it correctly?
How about the guy who got a different version and interpreted it the another way?
Post by: barrister on Feb 23, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Yung magnanakaw nga na napako sa krus katabi ni Hesus, naligtas. Sigurado namang walang alam sa scripture ang magnanakaw na yon.
Post by: bananabond on Feb 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2012 at 01:44 AM
This is the last time I will answer your questions. Next time, I will answer only those who are truly interested to learn, not those whose minds are already closed.
Aawww, why get offended? On the contrary, Im open minded and Im really looking forward to your intelligent answer and how does it fare with the bible. In fact Im excited to hear your full understanding on salvation, death and resurrection that's why Im challenging you with these questions.
Anyway the bible says in 1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
Now I want to get back on our subject SPIRIT,SOUL and BODY.
1 Thess 5:14-22 says "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole SPIRIT and SOUL and BODY be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
But in Matthew 10:28 says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both SOUL and BODY in hell. "
Was it a mistake that the SPIRIT was missed out in Matthew? 1 Thess 5:14-22 is for the Jesus believer's in which the SPIRIT is alive. While Matthew 10:28 is for the unbelievers where the SPIRIT is dead and only the BODY & SOUL goes to hell. And eventually into the Lake of Fire.
Now let me give you a background why unbeliever's got a dead SPIRIT.
In Genesis 1 when God created light and parted the sky,water & land, He just say the Word. But when He created living creatures, He says "Let the land produce vegetation", "Let the water teem with living creatures", "Let the land produce living creatures". He is created living things out of something so that what comes from it will be sustained by it.
But for man, God has taken dirt and form it into a man. Then God breathed it and it becomes a living soul. From here, man becomes a triune being SPIRIT (from God), BODY (from dirt) and SOUL (from the union of Spirit and Body). Thats why our body is sustained by dirt and our spirit is sustained by God.
God said if they eat the forbidden fruit, they will die. The serpent deceived them and when they ate it, they didnt die. Their body and soul didnt die, but the spirit that has come from God died because God cannot live with sin for He is a holy God. What happens when a plant was pulled out from the ground??? it dies. Its exactly what happens when Adam and Eve sinned, the spirit of God was taken out from them and we lost our connection to God.
This was the fall of man. And all of us, borne from Adam has dead spirit because we are born sinners. Bible says because of Adam's disobedience, all has become sinners.
How can the SPIRIT be alive again? When u got born again. How to be born again? As a start, confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord. If you truly do this, the Holy Spirit will dwell in you and your spirit will be alive again.
1 Corinthians 6:17 "But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit"
Titus 3:4-7 says "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."
The soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are. The spirit is the aspect of humanity that connects with God.
There is a standard by which men will be judged. I assure you, correct and wrong interpretations of the bible are not among the criteria.
Yung magnanakaw nga na napako sa krus katabi ni Hesus, naligtas. Sigurado namang walang alam sa scripture ang magnanakaw na yon.
By which standard then? So believing in a wrong doctrine still qualifies you for salvation? If you interpret and believe that salvation is by works where bible clearly says salvation is by grace, you think you still qualify?
Now John 12:47-49 says “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who REJECTS me and DOES NOT ACCEPT MY WORDS; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken."
Salvation is by God's grace and the way to receive it is to believe in Jesus. And if there's one thing dun sa magnanakaw eh he believed in Jesus. So thats the only thing needed in order to be saved then just like what Paul says in Acts 16:29-31 "The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”" They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Now, Id like to make it clear that whatever bible interpretions Im sharing to you all did not originate from my own. I myself knows nothing until I was taught, trained and equipped so that I can teach for ISOM (bible school) here in Singapore. From 2009, Im teaching the curriculum of International School Of Ministry which was established by distinguished bible teachers, preachers and church leaders of our generation like TL Osborne, Reinhard Bonnke, John Bevere, Joyce Meyer, Ray Comfort, etc. You can find the speakers, curriculum and the school details here http://www.isom.org/.
If you really seek in understanding the bible, I suggest you enrol and take the course (available online). Since according to the bible we will be judged by the Word of God then it is worth knowing and worth believing for.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 24, 2012 at 08:24 AM
This is also the reason why I don't believe in "Saints" (no offense to those who do. It's just a matter of personal belief)
Having faith is also different from believing. IMHO, i believe there are saints. I'm not a bible scholar i cannot quote kung saan sa bible ang description ng saint although AFAIK, meron. Saints are those who have faith (in a biblical context and deeper meaning) and have followed God's will. But i do not pray to them because they are not the means of salvation. Kung sino sino yun mga saints, i am not the one to judge that.
So who goes to heaven?
Is he the one who got lucky in getting the correct version of the bible and interpreting it correctly?
How about the guy who got a different version and interpreted it the another way?
There is a standard by which men will be judged. I assure you, correct and wrong interpretations of the bible are not among the criteria.
I agree with you. IMHO, this is my belief regarding salvation, which is incidentally, are my favorite verses which inspires me:
Ephesians 2:4-10 (NIV)
4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
And faith is not something we acquire on our own. Faith is a grace which is a gift from God. By ourselves alone, we cannot have faith. And again, faith is different from belief.
example ng belief:
I believe that my computer exists. Why, because i can see it and touch it.
verse 9 i interpret verse 9 as works, (good or bad) will never be a means of salvation. Maski na maghirap, mapagod pa tayo sa kakatulong sa iba. Otherwise we will be "boasting" our good works. Hence, we should be asking ourselves, are we doing this good works so that we will be saved? Or para magyabang tayo na nakatulong tayo sa kapwa? Or para tanggapin tayo sa langit? Or:
verse 10 says that we are God's creation. And in the book of Genesis, lahat ng God's creations are good. Ilan beses paulit ulit yun. I interpret good works as something God has prepared for us in advance to do WHEN we have faith. Meaning as a person who has faith, trabaho pala natin ang good works. No different from an employee who does his work well because the employee is being paid to do his work well.
Titus 3:5-8
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.
Sir barister. I have another question. Matagal ko na ito naiisip pero ngayon ko lang naalala. There was a time na nagbabasa ako ng bible exodus and may specific instructions si god on how to build the ark of the covenant. Napaisip lang ako na bakit gold and gems and precious stones ang gusto ni god doon sa ark... Naisip ko lang kung precious din ba sa kanya itong mga ito katulad ng pag consider ng tao na precious ang ginto etc. ... Naisip ko lang na its something a man would say....making something out of gold. What is gold to a god? Parang its no different to a stone siguro for him and yet he prefer it to be made out of gold. Dagdag na lang kaya ito ni moses? Or mis interpretation?
Allow me to give my opinion. First, hindi si Moses ang author ng Exodus so hindi si Moses ang nagdagdag nito if ever man nadagdag. ;) Regarding gems and gold, IMHO, kaya yun ang inutos ni Lord kay Moses is because probably God knows how valuable gems and gold is to man. Hence, God wants us to offer & sacrifice to God, that which is very valuable to us. God is teaching us na we should only offer ONLU our very best to God. And how valuable are the gems and gold is to God, hindi siguro. Kasi anytime God wants those things, ang dali lang for Him. Mahirap i-interpret ang Diyos in our own way of thinking kasi tao lamang tayo. Hindi tayo Diyos, so there are many things or questions na mahirap din intindihin because we are always thinking in a human way. Somebody asked me, anong ginagawa ng Diyos before He created the earth? Same answer. ;)
Post by: RU9 on Feb 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM
There is a standard by which men will be judged. I assure you, correct and wrong interpretations of the bible are not among the criteria.
Yung magnanakaw nga na napako sa krus katabi ni Hesus, naligtas. Sigurado namang walang alam sa scripture ang magnanakaw na yon.
Thank you.
It was just a stroke of luck that the the Spaniards introduced us to the Bible.
Would it matter if we got the Koran instead?
Post by: barrister on Feb 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM
The Spaniards brought Catholicism. That religion is not biblical. You will notice that my posts are based on the bible, but they are vastly diffrerent from Catholicism.
If the Spaniards had not arrived, Amerikano naman ang magdadala ng bibliya. Kung gusto mo ng American style born-again doctrines, basahin mo lang yung mga posts ni sir JT. Wag mo lang akong sisisihin kung imbis na malinawan ka, e lalo kang malabuan ... :D
The prophecy in Matthew says, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Mt. 24:14) The end will not come until the gospel is preached to all nations. Hanggang ngayon, may mga parte pa rin ng mundo na bawal ang bibliya; therefore, we know that that the end is not that near yet. Nevertheless, we are assured that the gospel would have eventually reached us here even without the Spaniards and the Americans.
But your question is, what if a person dies without knowing about the gospel, impiyerno na ba siya?
The answer is definitely no.
Sin is the transgression of the law. But if you were never aware of what the law is, it would be unfair to judge you based on rules that you were not aware of.
In that case, you will be judged according to the law of your conscience, and salvation would still be possible.
The bible puts it this way:
11 For God does not show favoritism. 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Rom. 2:11-16)
May sinasabi ba diyan na kailangang member ka ng isang relihiyon? Wala naman, di ba?
Pag tinanong mo si sir JT, ang sasabihin, pag hindi ka nila miyembro, impiyerno ka na.
By which standard then? So believing in a wrong doctrine still qualifies you for salvation? If you interpret and believe that salvation is by works where bible clearly says salvation is by grace, you think you still qualify?
Bakit? E kasi, kailangan ka nilang takutin para sumapi ka at dumami ang miyembro, para lumaki ang koleksiyon ... :D
Post by: barrister on Feb 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM
Sir barister. I have another question. Matagal ko na ito naiisip pero ngayon ko lang naalala. There was a time na nagbabasa ako ng bible exodus and may specific instructions si god on how to build the ark of the covenant. Napaisip lang ako na bakit gold and gems and precious stones ang gusto ni god doon sa ark... Naisip ko lang kung precious din ba sa kanya itong mga ito katulad ng pag consider ng tao na precious ang ginto etc. ... Naisip ko lang na its something a man would say....making something out of gold. What is gold to a god? Parang its no different to a stone siguro for him and yet he prefer it to be made out of gold. Dagdag na lang kaya ito ni moses? Or mis interpretation?
I have to admit that I've never thought about this before. I think it's related to Hebrews and Revelation. Search ko muna, then I'll post as soon as I form an opinion.
Post by: RU9 on Feb 24, 2012 at 02:57 PM
But your question is, what if a person dies without knowing about the gospel, impiyerno na ba siya?
The answer is definitely no.
Sin is the transgression of the law. But if you were never aware of what the law is, it would be unfair to judge you based on rules that you were not aware of.
In that case, you will be judged according to the law of your conscience, and salvation would still be possible.
May sinasabi ba diyan na kailangang member ka ng isang relihiyon? Wala naman, di ba?
Yes, I agree.
Quote
Bakit? E kasi, kailangan ka nilang takutin para sumapi ka at dumami ang miyembro, para lumaki ang koleksiyon ... :D
This one, I strongly agree.
Post by: barrister on Feb 24, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Sir barister. I have another question. Matagal ko na ito naiisip pero ngayon ko lang naalala. There was a time na nagbabasa ako ng bible exodus and may specific instructions si god on how to build the ark of the covenant. Napaisip lang ako na bakit gold and gems and precious stones ang gusto ni god doon sa ark... Naisip ko lang kung precious din ba sa kanya itong mga ito katulad ng pag consider ng tao na precious ang ginto etc. ... Naisip ko lang na its something a man would say....making something out of gold. What is gold to a god? Parang its no different to a stone siguro for him and yet he prefer it to be made out of gold. Dagdag na lang kaya ito ni moses? Or mis interpretation?
Accurate ang description ng Ark of the Covenant. Hindi dagdag ni Moses yon, kasi tugma sa description sa ibang parte ng bible.
Ang kailangang maintindihan sa Ark of the Covenant ay kumakatawan ito sa Old Covenant, the agreement between God and the ancient Israelites.
The Old Covenant was intended to be replaced by the New Covenant. The Old is material and temporary. The New is spiritual and permanent. The Old was made by human hands, the New was not made by human hands and is greater and more perfect than the Old.
The material Ark should be great materially. But the New Covenant would be even greater, exceeding the material greatness of the Old. Hebrews 9 explains it fully:
Note that the Ark was a "worldly" sanctuary.
1Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Pero walang kuwenta raw ang tabernacle ng Old Covenant:
2For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. 3And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. 6Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Ngayon, pagdating ng Covenant ver. 2.0, talong-talo daw yung Old:
11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Because the Ark is not real, but merely a figure of what is real:
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2012 at 05:29 PM
Now it doesn't say anywhere in scripture that those who have never heard the gospel are condemned. It says for those who has heard and did not believe are condemned already. It also doesnt say that you need to be part of a religion or religious group. Born again is a spiritual state, not a denomination. Unfortunately, not all christians are clear with this. What the scripture clearly says is that the gospel can save all those who will believe and that it should be preached to all.
Lets have a look at Abraham, he was before the Law and before the gospel message, yet he had faith, in fact he is our Father in the faith. The Roman Centurion had more faith than the whole of Israel who had the law. Amd what about Enoch?
The point is this, you can still know God even if you have never heard the gospel. You could be born in the jungles of Mindanao and know God through conscience. Conscience is made up to 2 Latin words, con & science. 'Con' means with and 'science' means knowledge. We all have a conscience and no-one can escape Gods judgment because of that. I believe that some serve God more through mere conscience than some who know and live the gospel.
The Jews thought that they were the only ones who were saved. But Elijah wasn't a Jew neither is Job. Nowadays most Christians think that they are the only ones who are saved. Rather if we hear the gospel and respond to it with God's will, then we are guaranteed of our salvation, if we hold on to it. We can know that our names are written in the Book of Life. But to those who have not heard, they will be judged not because they didn't hear the gospel, but on their heart, conscience and works. God is merciful and he can save by his grace anyone he chooses. We cannot dictate to God who will be saved. We have to read all his scriptures and find the balance.
Consider Matthew 25 31-46 for example, these are the words of Jesus. It clearly shows that Jesus will divide people from the nations based on their treatment of his brothers. Who are his brothers? Even though this scripture may seem to indicate that people are saved by works, ultimately man’s works are like filthy rags, but God saves them through grace, and He divinely chooses not to save the selfish by his grace. This scripture is pointed to the every nations not to the Church.
31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 "Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44 "They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45 "He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
You will also notice at Jesus words in Luke 16:19-25 that the only true division is righteous and wicked, not Christian and non-Christian or Jew and Gentile. The gospel is the greatest message because it is the power to save unto salvation to all who believe. It has the power to save the worst sinner and it also has the power to condemn those who think they are righteous. It draws a definite line and it gives us the understanding and confidence to where we stand before God. Our conscience on the other hand is very weak and can condemn us, however God is more powerful than our conscience. Our conscience is God's law written in our heart. Those under the law can be saved because the law points us to Christ. It will depend on your heart motives toward Gods law, and not your failings. Of course Christ is the fulfillment of the law, but not everyone is privileged to hear the message of fulfillment (the gospel), but the lack of that message doesn't mean that you are necessarily condemned.
And for us who claim to be Christian, has heard the gospel and has access to the bible, we do not have any excuse before God for being ignorant of His Word or try to justify ourselves by good works.
This is where John 12:47-49 applies “If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who REJECTS me and DOES NOT ACCEPT MY WORDS; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken."
Hope this clarifies.
Post by: markcrenz on Feb 24, 2012 at 09:25 PM
Post by: JT on Feb 25, 2012 at 01:45 AM
sana JT pinost mo na lang link. parang nabago lang yung South America naging Mindanao.
Hmm, its not completely copy and paste because I have to add/modify some lines. But does it really matters if I copy and paste or post the link? Should I rephrase it completely so that it will sound original and I can take credit from it? Do u think Im after your praises or what is important is to convey the point in which Im reposting because I agree with it?
Didn't I mention in my previous post that these things are not from my own? But if you are really keen in hearing from me directly out of my own words, you are most welcome to attend my discipleship class every tuesday and friday night here at Tampines, Singapore.
Post by: RU9 on Feb 25, 2012 at 08:53 AM
http://kidshealth.org/kid/feeling/school/plagiarism.html#
Below is the relevant part of the link:
Plagiarism is a form of cheating, but it's a little complicated so a kid might do it without understanding that it's wrong. Chris should have given the author and the website credit for the information. Why? Because Chris didn't know this information before he came to the website. These aren't his thoughts or ideas.
Plagiarism Steals Ideas
The word plagiarism comes from a Latin word for kidnapping. You know that kidnapping is stealing a person. Well, plagiarism is stealing a person's ideas or writing. You wouldn't take someone's lunch money or bike, right? Well, someone's words and thoughts are personal property, too.
What should Chris have done? He should have written down the name of the website and the name of the person who wrote the article. Then he could have added it and given credit to the source.
Post by: JT on Feb 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM
http://kidshealth.org/kid/feeling/school/plagiarism.html#
Below is the relevant part of the link:
Plagiarism is a form of cheating, but it's a little complicated so a kid might do it without understanding that it's wrong. Chris should have given the author and the website credit for the information. Why? Because Chris didn't know this information before he came to the website. These aren't his thoughts or ideas.
Plagiarism Steals Ideas
The word plagiarism comes from a Latin word for kidnapping. You know that kidnapping is stealing a person. Well, plagiarism is stealing a person's ideas or writing. You wouldn't take someone's lunch money or bike, right? Well, someone's words and thoughts are personal property, too.
What should Chris have done? He should have written down the name of the website and the name of the person who wrote the article. Then he could have added it and given credit to the source.
Thanks for pointing this out and it should not be a problem highlighting the author if it means so much in this forum.
Sana nga ito ang gustong palabasin nung iba dito when making such comment.
Post by: rusty on Feb 25, 2012 at 07:36 PM
Reuters February 25, 2012 6:44pm
ROME - Italy's government announced measures on Friday to end tax exemptions on commercial property owned by the Catholic Church, a move expected to add as much as 600 million euros ($805 million) to state coffers each year.
Prime Minister Mario Monti, who is a practicing Catholic, tacked the measure - which also affects other non-profit organizations - onto a larger deregulation package currently going through parliament.
The Church owns many private clinics, hotels and guest houses that enjoy tax exempt status because parts of them are also occupied by priests or nuns, or have a chapel.
The new law closes this loophole, which had granted tax exemptions to many structures that were predominantly commercial.
Monti asked Italians in December to make tough sacrifices as part of a severe austerity plan to stem contagion from the euro zone debt crisis.
In a 48-hour period after the austerity package was passed, more than 130,000 people signed an online petition demanding that the Church be stripped of much of its tax exempt status and pay its fair share.
The new law will have a "positive effect on revenue", the government said without giving an estimate. The income it makes from the measure will go towards cutting taxes, not reducing Italy's massive debt, it said.
According to an estimate by Italy's association of city governments, the new taxes will bring in between 500 and 600 million euros per year.
The package is due to be voted on in the Senate next week, and must then go before the lower house of parliament. — Reuters
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/249403/news/world/italy-to-end-tax-breaks-for-catholic-church
Post by: dpogs on Feb 27, 2012 at 04:55 PM
kapag business/commercial dapat may tax...
Post by: barrister on Mar 05, 2012 at 10:54 PM
By Ira Pedrasa, ABS-CBNNews.com
Posted at 03/05/2012 12:30 PM | Updated as of 03/05/2012 4:40 PM
MANILA, Philippines - Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago is also adept in Bible teachings that she is willing to debate with a priest who said she should be consigned to the "fires of hell" over her actions in the impeachment court.
In a statement, Santiago told Fr. Catalino Arevalo that under “(the Second Vatican Council), there is no hell; but even if there is, there is nobody there.”
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/05/12/miriam-debates-priest-there-no-hell
Post by: sharkey360 on Mar 12, 2012 at 08:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG6Fd_2yNt4
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG6Fd_2yNt4
Is this about Atheism?
Post by: sharkey360 on Mar 27, 2012 at 08:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_rsM0Zw_pw
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 06, 2012 at 09:21 PM
A Catholic bishop in Kansas City must stand trial on charges that he failed to report a priest found with pornographic pictures of young girls on his Church computer to police, a judge said on Thursday.
Bishop Robert Finn, head of the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, faces one misdemeanor charge that he failed to tell authorities that Church officials had found disturbing pictures of unclothed little girls that appeared to have been taken by a popular local priest, Father Patrick Ratigan.
His trial is set to start September 24.
Finn's lawyers had asked that the case against him be dismissed and argued in a hearing last week that Missouri statutes requiring clergy, school teachers and others to report suspected child sexual abuse were "vague."
They also argued that even if the bishop suspected abuse he had no duty to report the situation to authorities, because he was not the "designated reporter" within the diocese and could rely on someone else within the diocese to notify authorities.
But Jackson County Circuit Judge John Torrence rejected those arguments, ruling Thursday that the case would go forward.
"The court finds that the evidence in this case is sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Bishop Finn was a designated reporter as defined by Missouri law," the judge wrote.
"While we are disappointed in the pre-trial rulings, we will continue to strive towards a fair resolution of the issues," said J.R. Hobbs, an attorney for Finn.
Finn is the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic leader to face criminal charges in connection with alleged child sexual abuse by a priest. The church for the last several decades has been confronted with allegations of wide-spread abuse of children by priests and has repeatedly been accused of covering up the acts.
But criminal prosecution of those accused of engaging in the cover-ups is rare.
The case against Finn comes as another high-profile trial against senior Catholic clergy is underway in Philadelphia.
There, Monsignor William Lynn, former secretary of the clergy for the Philadelphia Archdiocese, is charged with child endangerment and conspiracy over accusations that he covered up abuse allegations against priests, many of whom were simply transferred to unsuspecting parishes.
The Lynn trial is expected to continue for several more weeks.
In Finn's case, Church officials discovered the photos on Ratigan's computer in December 2010 and spent months analyzing whether or not they should turn him in.
When Church officials initially confronted Ratigan, he tried to kill himself. But he survived and was ultimately sent by Bishop Finn for psychological assessment and ordered to stay away from children.
Police were not notified until another Church official called them in May 2011. Ratigan is now in jail awaiting trial on 13 counts of child pornography.
Victims' parents allege he continued to take pornographic pictures of young girls connected to the diocese until shortly before his arrest, and many blame Bishop Finn for not notifying parents and the police.
Both Finn and the diocese were indicted by a grand jury in Jackson County in October for failing to report Ratigan. Both have pleaded not guilty.
Diocese spokeswoman Rebecca Summers declined to comment about the judge's ruling Thursday, citing "deference to the solemnity of Holy Week."
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-refuses-drop-charges-against-u-catholic-bishop-200151279.html;_ylt=Ag26qDv6KDzPrSUFiztSLyvzWed_;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5NWpkajZkBGNjb2RlA2xpdmVzdGFuZARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91BHBrZwNjM2ZhMjQzOS0yMzBkLTMyNWMtYWNkMS1iMWUwNzQxNTk4NzYEcG9zAzUEc2VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDMDkwZDNhYTEtN2Y2Mi0xMWUxLTk1ZGYtNTU2YjVkNjY5MjYx;_ylg=X3oDMTNramVsOWQ4BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYjZjYTVhYmItNDZiMy0zYzQyLWIyMjktM2VjNzFlY2Y2MGZmBHBzdGNhdANzY2llbmNlfGRpbm9zYXVycyAtIGZvc3NpbHMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
Post by: tigkal on Apr 06, 2012 at 09:50 PM
Post by: indie boi on Apr 07, 2012 at 07:00 AM
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 07, 2012 at 07:05 AM
sana lahat ng denomination... hindi lang catholic...
kapag business/commercial dapat may tax...
siksik, liglig at umaapaw ang mga industriya ng pagrereligion dito sa atin, dapat lang magbayad sila ng buwis......
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 08, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Is religiosity among Filipinos especially among the poor one of the factors why they're still poor? I think some people are very fatalistic with the "bahala na" attitude and put little to no effort in trying to better their lives since they accept that being poor is their lot in life and trust that things will be better for them when they die.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2012 at 05:52 AM
I'd like to pose question to this thread, especially the religious people here:
Is religiosity among Filipinos especially among the poor one of the factors why they're still poor? I think some people are very fatalistic with the "bahala na" attitude and put little to no effort in trying to better their lives since they accept that being poor is their lot in life and trust that things will be better for them when they die.
first of all, are we referring to catholics when we says 'religiosity'? hindi lahat na mahirap dito sa Pilipinas ay Catholics...
second, religiosity is very different from being a true believer or a genuine Christian. we can be religious as much as we want and yet behaving not a christian.
third, what is the definition of 'having a better life'? is it having a good job? is it having a big house? is it being a rich? being poor doesnt mean not having enough money or not having a big house.
if we are referring to earthly riches, then God never teaches laziness... God teach to live our faith. if we believe that being a christian is being rich (spiritual or material) then we need to work for it. God never teaches to pray and to wait na tugunan ang ating panalangin.
also, ang araw ay bumabagsak sa lahat ng sulok ng mundo. ibig sabihin ang biyaya ng Diyos ay napupunta sa lahat ng tao (believer man o hindi)... God never said na kapag hindi ka believer hindi ka magkakaroon ng earthly riches... it is written in the Bible na pinagpapala ng Diyos ang taong masipag (period).
we can now conclude, if the majority of Filiponos are poor, then majority of Filipinos either not a true christian or they are just plain (super duper) lazy.
final comment: Hindi kasalanan ng tao ang isinilang sa mundo na mahirap, kasalanan ng tao kung namatay siyang mahirap (spiritual or physical sense).
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 09, 2012 at 06:28 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 09, 2012 at 08:54 AM
Christ lived a life of poverty and chastity......why are religions amassing wealth and power?
Maybe you can try to be specific which religion sir. so that the guru's here can answer your question. ;)
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 09, 2012 at 09:13 AM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 09, 2012 at 09:43 AM
Christ lived a life of poverty and chastity......why are religions amassing wealth and power?
Poverty, yes. Chastity, debateable.
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 09, 2012 at 10:00 AM
a lot of gospel books about Christ were found in 1945, these dead sea scrolls may have more info about the Christ....
Post by: JT on Apr 09, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Christ lived a life of poverty and chastity......why are religions amassing wealth and power?
Who says Christ lived a life of poverty? He can pay tax coming from a mouth of a fish. Can feed 5 thousand with 5 bread and 2 fish. Received a gift of gold and other precious stuff when he was born. Who can say He is poor? He doesnt lack anything but lived a life of modesty. And so is the same for all those who will believed in Him ... they will not lack anything.
Life of Chastity? Nothing is directly mentioned but He is telling prostitutes,adulterers,fornicators to repent and sin no more otherwise it will lead to Hell. Now it doesnt make sense if Jesus doesnt practiced what He preached.
Why religions amassing wealth and power? Because there are church leaders who are not good stewards. And they will be accountable before God on judgement day. All should be used for the furtherance of God's kingdom. For the purpose of reaching out and preaching the good news to all nations.
^all......i even heard a pastor saying pag hindi ka nagikapu, ninanakawan mo ang Diyos...... ;D ;)
Because it is written in Malachi 3:6-12 (New King James Version),
“For I am the Lord, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.
Yet from the days of your fathers. You have gone away from My ordinances
And have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you,”
Says the Lord of hosts. “But you said,
‘In what way shall we return?’
“Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me!
But you say,‘In what way have we robbed You?’
In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse,
For you have robbed Me,Even this whole nation.
Bring all the tithes into the storehouse,
That there may be food in My house,
And try Me now in this,”Says the Lord of hosts,
“If I will not open for you the windows of heaven
And pour out for you such blessing
that there will not be room enough to receive it.
“And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes,
So that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground,
Nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field,”
Says the Lord of hosts;
“And all nations will call you blessed, For you will be a delightful land,”
Says the Lord of hosts."
So it is for your good that you give 10%. God had promise to stop the devourer, bless your finances and open opportunities in your life. Without tithing, your finances are not blessed by God and prone to problems. Proverbs 10:22 also says "The blessing of the LORD makes one rich, And He adds no sorrow with it." I have experienced this promise so I can really relate and testify that it is true.
And most of all Tithes and Offerings is God testing the condition of your heart regarding material wealth.
Now some may say, this is just for Israel (or in the Old Testament). Well, Cain and Abel gave offerings. Abraham gave tithes even there is no Israel yet. New testament believers gave offerings and gave even all they have. And notice the verse 6 says, the Lord do not change. It is God's principle that still applies today if you want your finances to prosper. Now, who wouldnt want to prosper?
Post by: Verbl Kint on Apr 09, 2012 at 05:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/RPm6c.jpg)
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 09, 2012 at 09:10 PM
Post by: alistair on Apr 10, 2012 at 09:27 AM
Post by: indie boi on Apr 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Post by: mike c on Apr 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM
we should ignore, it is exactly intolerance like this that starts holy wars (or the modern equivalent, viral interweb flaming)
especially from "Christians" who should speak no negative towards others and should turn the other cheek.
Post by: Moks007 on Apr 18, 2012 at 09:52 PM
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Belief in God is highest among older people and increases with age, perhaps due to the growing realization that death is coming closer, University of Chicago researchers said on Wednesday.
Summarizing data from surveys performed in 1991, 1998 and 2008 in 30 countries from Chile to Japan, the university's National Opinion Research Center found that, on average, 43 percent of those aged 68 and older were certain that God exists.
By comparison, an average of 23 percent of people aged 27 and younger were firm believers in God, according to the report, which gathered data from the International Social Survey Program, a consortium of the world's leading opinion survey organizations.
"Looking at differences among age groups, the largest increases in belief in God most often occur among those 58 years of age and older. This suggests that belief in God is especially likely to increase among the oldest groups, perhaps in response to the increasing anticipation of mortality," researcher Tom Smith said in a statement.
Over the past two decades, belief in God has decreased in most countries, but the declines were modest, Smith said.
Israel, Slovenia and Russia were three exceptions where belief in God had grown. For instance in Russia, non-believers who became believers outnumbered by 16 percent those who had lost their belief in God.
Belief was highest in strongly Catholic countries such as the Philippines, at 94 percent, and lowest in Western Europe, with only 13 percent of former East Germans believers.
In the United States, 81 percent of people surveyed said they had always believed in God, and 68 percent support the concept that God is concerned with people in a personal way.
People were asked about their range of beliefs, from atheism to strong belief in God; their changing beliefs over their lifetimes; and their attitudes toward the notion that God is concerned with individuals.
The countries surveyed were Australia, Austria, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, The Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 20, 2012 at 03:58 PM
Because nothing says Christ-like than living inside a mansion and telling people to stick more closely to doctrine.
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 20, 2012 at 07:07 PM
Vatican reprimands U.S. nuns group. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html?_r=1)
Because nothing says Christ-like than living inside a mansion and telling people to stick more closely to doctrine.
Vatican obviously wants to have more power and change the nations around the world the way they want to. Don't forget that the Vatican itself will never allow an American cardinal to become Pope as it would cause a major imbalance of world power in their view. Still, the Vatican wants to control America, wipe out dissenters and re-direct America's society.
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 20, 2012 at 07:18 PM
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Unknown15.jpeg)
Take, for example, Paul Ryan’s much-celebrated budget plan. Although the plan is billed as a solution to the debt crisis, it really only does three things: 1) increases taxes on the poor and middle class while decreasing them for the rich; 2) increases an already bloated defense budget; and 3) slashes all other areas of the government, often by severe proportions.
And while Paul Ryan is busy advocating further tax breaks for millionaires, Congressional Republicans have advanced a measure that would make draconian cuts to food stamp programs. The effort would make it harder for families to get on nutrition assistance programs (food stamps), give them less money while they’re on the rolls, and kick them off quicker and more easily.
It’s amazing that Republicans can even keep a straight face while threatening to cut off the only food available to hundreds of thousands of poor families. What’s even more shocking, though, is how they claim that their position is supported by Jesus and the Bible.
Mr. Ryan, a Catholic, told NPR, “Through our civic organizations, through our charities — through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community — that’s how we advance the common good.”
He fails to realize, however, that if our government suddenly decided to get out of the social aid business and just drop all welfare, food stamp, Medicaid, and disability recipients onto the doorstep of civic organizations and charities, they would all go broke and thousands of people would die. Suddenly we would become aware that “big government” does, in fact, perform a necessary function, one that the private sector doesn’t have the means or desire to manage.
The arguments that these conservatives do have are tenuous at best, relying on shaky interpretations of a few verses (even claiming, ridiculously, that one parable teaches opposition to unions). Richard Land at the Southern Baptist Convention is in Ryan’s camp. “The Bible tells us that socialism and neo-socialism never worked,” he says. “Confiscatory tax rates never worked.”
Actually, the Bible never uses the word “socialism.” In fact, there are scores of verses that support a compassionate approach to helping the poor, regardless of who has to undertake the mission. Even a handful of these verses should be enough to convince even the most hard-headed among conservative Christians. Here are just a few:
-
“However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you.” Deuteronomy 15:4
“Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan.” Exodus 22:22
“He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor, his righteousness endures forever; his horn will be lifted high in honor.” Psalm 112:9
“If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. . . . If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. . . . If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.” Leviticus 25:25, 35, 39
“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Leviticus 19:15
“All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.” Galatians 2:10
“But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind.” Luke 14:13
“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” 1 John 3:17-18
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/16/paul-ryan-thinks-jesus-endorsed-ignoring-the-poor/
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 20, 2012 at 07:27 PM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/19/pat-robertson-says-poor-jews-dont-understand-anti-semitism-i-do/
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 21, 2012 at 07:03 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM
imho, it is wrong to blame the Jews for the death of Christ.......Christ had to die, the sacrificial lamb of God died on the cross so that sins of the world can be forgiven, Jews included....
that is true... no one take the life of Christ... He willingly gave His life... so that we might live.
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 21, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Pat Robertson: Poor Jews Don’t Understand Anti-Semitism – I Do
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/19/pat-robertson-says-poor-jews-dont-understand-anti-semitism-i-do/
Pat Robertson wanted to become US president, just like a minister here, but their Gods don't allow them......tha't's God's justice....
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 23, 2012 at 08:10 AM
The Vatican is right in that the LCWR is a liberal organization. Their website addresses income inequality with documents like this, in support of the Occupy movement, or this, in support of families of immigrants. These sisters are free-thinking women, an idea that goes against the grain of the “modern” Catholic church, which refuses to budge from the 16th Century.
The nuns aren’t alone in Catholics that are at odds with the Church hierarchy. The majority of American Catholics support same-sex marriage, a change from just two years ago. The church, however, is taking a very political stance against same-sex marriage.
In March, (Archbishop) Nienstedt was one of 13 bishops from Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota who met with Pope Benedict XVI to report on affairs in their diocese. According to The Catholic Spirit, “Archbishop Nienstedt told Pope Benedict that ‘all the bishops are resolved to take this opportunity that we have in the political area to catechize in the religious area, to catechize about the meaning and the sanctity of marriage.’
The Catholic church has also taken a strong political stance against the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka Obamacare) for its policy that all health insurance companies must cover hormonal contraception.
The LCWR has come out in favor of the Affordable Healthcare Act, but not because of its contraception mandate, and only after being assured that abortions will not be covered. The group sees affordable healthcare as a necessary step in battling poverty. The nuns have been silent on issues of same-sex marriage and on birth control and that is where they have been at odds with the church.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/22/american-nuns-reject-vaticans-orders-say-they-are-not-going-to-stop-caring-for-the-least-among-us/
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 23, 2012 at 01:28 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Here's a quote by Bishop Bacani:
Quote
“These so-called atheists love with a great altruism, they really love their fellow man and even have a passion for justice and what is right and good. Those people really believe in God in their hearts, but they will not admit that.”
He seems to think that there's no such thing as a truly good atheist. If you see atheists who are doing good work, it must mean that deep down inside, they believe in God. He seems to think it's crazy that a person can truly be good without believing in a deity.
Any thoughts on that?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 25, 2012 at 01:10 PM
An interesting article on atheists in the Philippines. (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/atheists-searching-for-their-place-in-heavily-catholic-philippines/513812)
Here's a quote by Bishop Bacani:
He seems to think that there's no such thing as a truly good atheist. If you see atheists who are doing good work, it must mean that deep down inside, they believe in God. He seems to think it's crazy that a person can truly be good without believing in a deity.
Any thoughts on that?
IMHO, I think it's normally possible to do good things with or without belief in a diety or any diety in particular. nagkaka-iba lang sa personal intentions ng pag-gawa ng good works. For others, they do it to glorify themselves, as a passport for salvation, normal lang sa kanila (as a person or as a community), command ng diety or as a result of their faith.
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 25, 2012 at 01:52 PM
An interesting article on atheists in the Philippines. (http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/atheists-searching-for-their-place-in-heavily-catholic-philippines/513812)
Here's a quote by Bishop Bacani:
He seems to think that there's no such thing as a truly good atheist. If you see atheists who are doing good work, it must mean that deep down inside, they believe in God. He seems to think it's crazy that a person can truly be good without believing in a deity.
Any thoughts on that?
Bacani is completely out of touch! It is proven possible that a person can be decent and do good in life without religion or any worship of a deity.
Post by: Pillow on Apr 25, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 25, 2012 at 04:39 PM
I think athiest who do good are genuinely doing so without thinking about the rewards they would reap later, as opposed to believers who perform good deeds thinking this will earn them a free pass come judgement day.
Which I think makes them superior to those types of believers.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 25, 2012 at 06:02 PM
I think athiest who do good are genuinely doing so without thinking about the rewards they would reap later, as opposed to believers who perform good deeds thinking this will earn them a free pass come judgement day.
I agree with you. But there are also other believers who perform good deeds because it's a natural thing for them due to their faith. Ang alam ko nga, for those who's faith relies on the Bible, that deeds or works cannot be a pass for heaven or judgement day.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 25, 2012 at 08:06 PM
I think athiest who do good are genuinely doing so without thinking about the rewards they would reap later, as opposed tobelieverswho perform good deeds thinking this will earn them a free pass come judgement day.
those are the religious ones... they are not believers...
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 26, 2012 at 04:46 AM
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 26, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 26, 2012 at 05:32 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 26, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM
http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981285374
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 27, 2012 at 05:09 AM
Post by: JT on Apr 27, 2012 at 02:26 PM
What do you think of this?
http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981285374
Is this the official stand of the Vatican? Have they officially teaching and preaching this?
I think this is just isolated, this Cardinal is just speaking for himself of he personally believes.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 27, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Is this the official stand of the Vatican? Have they officially teaching and preaching this?
I think this is just isolated, this Cardinal is just speaking for himself of he personally believes.
I know that the Vatican accepts evolution and natural selection and cautions against taking the Bible too literally.
I don't know if they came out and said Adam and Eve didn't exist and was a myth.
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 27, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Quote
cautions against taking the Bible too literally
the proliferation of those churches with the likes of David Koresh, and Rev. Jim Jones...brings sad memories...
or those strange cults, Like the AKO which predicted the end of the world...and came back empty handed....
strange religions that teaches that you can be stealing from God....
Post by: JT on Apr 27, 2012 at 05:18 PM
I know that the Vatican accepts evolution and natural selection and cautions against taking the Bible too literally.
I don't know if they came out and said Adam and Eve didn't exist and was a myth.
Actually, every generation yata may binabagong teachings ang Vatican. I thinks its just a matter of time na acceptable na rin nila na Adam and Eve was a myth. Like Vatican now supporting the possibility of aliens (and even funding it) while before eh condemning it.
Thats what happens kapag hinaluan yung bible ng traditions at wisdom & knowledge of this world. Magiging pabago-bago ang doctrina, pabago-bago ang truth. May mga sections ang bible not to be taken literally and it is confirm thru cross-referencing the verses. But Adam and Eve were clear true characters in the bible. And their names even referenced in the new testament. I think National Geographic researchers has also affirms that mankind has originated from a single man and woman only, I cant remember their project name.
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 27, 2012 at 07:14 PM
all the others like whether Adam and Eve were true does not matter anymore.....
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 27, 2012 at 07:27 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/429657_381154391909522_100000448935979_1327096_617335040_n.jpg)
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 27, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 28, 2012 at 04:45 AM
Ronald Reagan is reportedly not very religious. Barack Obama attends church more often than Reagan who hardly did.
Funny that many people viewed Reagan as a fighter for religious freedom during the late stage of the Cold War. Even the extremists like Pat Robertson sided with him.
Post by: sardaukar on Apr 29, 2012 at 04:02 PM
A series of new experiments shows that analytic thinking can override intuitive assumptions, including those that underlie religious belief
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief
"Obviously, this study doesn't prove the nonexistence of God. But it poses a challenge to believers: If God exists, and if believing in God is perfectly rational, then why does increasing rational thinking tend to decrease belief in God?"
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief
A series of new experiments shows that analytic thinking can override intuitive assumptions, including those that underlie religious belief
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief
"Obviously, this study doesn't prove the nonexistence of God. But it poses a challenge to believers: If God exists, and if believing in God is perfectly rational, then why does increasing rational thinking tend to decrease belief in God?"
Well IMHO, i guess they did not use their analytical thinking in lieu of their faith/belief. :D
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 29, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2012 at 10:03 PM
I think there should be belief in God and belief in religion. I for one believe there may be a Supreme Being and while I respect and even believe in the wisdom and traditions of religion, I think by and large religious dogma is largely b.s.
Ako naman, a religion should be a means of building a relationship with God. And yes, belief in God and religion are two different things. Just like magkaiba din ang faith and belief.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 29, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Any thoughts on Miriam Quiambao's controversial tweet:
Quote
“Homosexuality is not a sin but it is a lie from the devil. Do not be deceived. God loves gays and wants them to know the truth,”
Post by: barrister on Apr 29, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Any thoughts on Miriam Quiambao's controversial tweet:
“Homosexuality is not a sin but it is a lie from the devil. Do not be deceived. God loves gays and wants them to know the truth,”
My thoughts? Her tweet doesn't make sense. ???
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 30, 2012 at 04:36 AM
Post by: barrister on Apr 30, 2012 at 08:54 AM
It is not a sin to dress and act like a woman if you are a man...
In my opinion, the bible is against cross-dressing:
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)
Post by: anchit on Apr 30, 2012 at 09:07 AM
In my opinion, the bible is against cross-dressing:
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)
pano sir ang jeans. i think it was made for guys back then.
Post by: barrister on Apr 30, 2012 at 09:17 AM
pano sir ang jeans. i think it was made for guys back then.
IMO, ok lang ang jeans for women.
"Back then" should refer to biblical times, when the verse was written. Jeans had not been invented yet back then, so you can't say the verse was referring to jeans.
Sabi ng mga Christian fundamentalists, palda lang ang puwede sa babae. I disagree. The verse says a woman must not wear men's clothing. It does not say a woman must not wear jeans.
Ito ang bawal:
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/abc_chaz_bono_gma_jef_110906_wg.jpg)
Chaz Bono (Cher's daughter)
Post by: dpogs on Apr 30, 2012 at 09:24 AM
pano sir ang jeans. i think it was made for guys back then.
it was intended for men... then it must be for men only... the design... the fit... the zipper... jeans specifically made for men not for women...
imo... women should not wear jeans... lalunglalo na ang mga bakat na bakat or hubog sa katawan na jeans...
(except for some scenario..)
hmmm... well... its more on the objective why wear some kind/type of dress... kung magdadamit lang naman para makita ang hubog o tikas ng katawan... then.. huwag nang isuot ang damit....
Post by: barrister on Apr 30, 2012 at 09:43 AM
imo... women should not wear jeans... lalunglalo na ang mga bakat na bakat or hubog sa katawan na jeans...
Kung bakat, ang problema ay yung fit, hindi yung jeans per se.
Kahit palda, kung mini and/or sobrang sikip naman, bawal din.
In that case, ang applicable ay hindi Deut. 22:5 (women should not wear men's clothing), kundi 1 Tim. 2:9 (women should dress modestly, with decency and propriety).
Paano kung nasa beach, bawal ang swimsuit? Madali naman ang interpretation, huwag lang sarado ang isip.
Post by: alistair on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Double jeopardy? ;D
Post by: barrister on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM
Paano yung mga naka-denim bikini?
Magkakamot kasi makati... :D
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 30, 2012 at 12:21 PM
imo... women should not wear jeans... lalunglalo na ang mga bakat na bakat or hubog sa katawan na jeans...
dpogs - Congratulations! You've discovered time travel. I didn't know you were posting from 1937. Why don't you go kill Hitler while you're there!
To the one who posted the Bible verse: Maraming bawal sa Bible na ginagawa ng tao. Eating shrimp, wearing clothes of two different fabrics, touching dead animals, working on the weekends, men shaving their beards, having contact with women who are on their period, etc. You're picking and choosing the parts of the Bible you want to follow. Religious homophobes like to pick the ones to justify their hatred and fear of LGBT people. I can only respect their position if you actually EVERYTHING in the Bible to the letter including stoning adulterers. Why don't you go throw a rock at Erap while you go around hating homosexuals? I'll respect you for that.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 30, 2012 at 01:47 PM
this is my post
imo... women should not wear jeans... lalunglalo na ang mga bakat na bakat or hubog sa katawan na jeans...
we are expressing our opinion... at kung sa tingin mo ung post kong yan ay naglalaman ng hatred and fear of LGBT.. nasa sa iyo na yan...
Post by: bass_nut on Apr 30, 2012 at 03:06 PM
dpogs - Congratulations! You've discovered time travel. I didn't know you were posting from 1937. Why don't you go kill Hitler while you're there!
To the one who posted the Bible verse: Maraming bawal sa Bible na ginagawa ng tao. Eating shrimp, wearing clothes of two different fabrics, touching dead animals, working on the weekends, men shaving their beards, having contact with women who are on their period, etc. You're picking and choosing the parts of the Bible you want to follow. Religious homophobes like to pick the ones to justify their hatred and fear of LGBT people. I can only respect their position if you actually EVERYTHING in the Bible to the letter including stoning adulterers. Why don't you go throw a rock at Erap while you go around hating homosexuals? I'll respect you for that.
I think there should be belief in God and belief in religion. I for one believe there may be a Supreme Being and while I respect and even believe in the wisdom and traditions of religion, I think by and large religious dogma is largely b.s.
clearly, we know who bears hatred.
yes, please post your LGBT sentiments on the appropriate thread, klaus.
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 30, 2012 at 03:27 PM
In my opinion, the bible is against cross-dressing:
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)
who defines what clothing can be worn by either man or woman?
Post by: ATJr. on Apr 30, 2012 at 03:30 PM
In my opinion, the bible is against cross-dressing:
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)
did the bible also said it is wrong to act like a woman if you are a man? what i mean is yung pilantik ng daliri at manner of speaking? saang sitas makikita yan?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 30, 2012 at 03:37 PM
clearly, we know who bears hatred.
yes, please post your LGBT sentiments on the appropriate thread, klaus.
The LGBT thread bans religious discussions. I think the religious aspects, whether the acceptance or non-acceptance of LGBT people is more appropriate for this thread unless the mods see fit to make it into a seperate thread altogether.
Disagreeing with or rejecting religious dogma or doctrines is not hatred. At least not hatred for PEOPLE.
Post by: JT on Apr 30, 2012 at 03:55 PM
did the bible also said it is wrong to act like a woman if you are a man? what i mean is yung pilantik ng daliri at manner of speaking? saang sitas makikita yan?
The closest in the New Testament is the word 'EFFEMINATE". And its in 1 Corinthians 6:9 King James Version (KJV)
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 30, 2012 at 04:03 PM
So it is our duty as christians, to respect them first and help/guide them accordingly. Let us leave the condemning etc to God alone. Arguing with the LGBT peeps won't help christians in our goal/mission spreading the gospel.
Post by: JT on Apr 30, 2012 at 04:26 PM
who defines what clothing can be worn by either man or woman?
We are missing the point here. Its not really the clothing but the intent of the heart why wear such clothing. Scottish, malaysians, indian, etc men wear skirts bec its just part of their culture.
In the old testament, I believe some laws like clothing, food, festivals were to sanctify (means to set apart) the nation of Israel. Israel was a new nation then and these laws was partly to constitute or to establish their culture.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 30, 2012 at 04:30 PM
So it is our duty as christians, to respect them first and help/guide them accordingly. Let us leave the condemning etc to God alone. Arguing with the LGBT peeps won't help christians in our goal/mission spreading the gospel.
If your goal is to simply share the gospel, then no problem but if you're also trying to convert them into heterosexuality, then that's a problem. Studies have shown that trying to convert LGBT actually does more harm than good and a lot of it is tantamount to spiritual and mental abuse.
Jesus Christ never mentioned a single word about gays. In fact, there is a story in the Gospels about Jesus healing a Roman centurion's "slave". In some translations of the Gospels, the "slave" in question may actually be the teenage gay lover of the Roman centurion (as was the practice of the Roman soldiers at the time).
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 30, 2012 at 04:58 PM
If your goal is to simply share the gospel, then no problem but if you're also trying to convert them into heterosexuality, then 1. that's a problem. Studies have shown that trying to convert LGBT actually does more harm than good and a lot of it is tantamount to spiritual and mental abuse.
1. Ok lang. Hindi naman lahat ng bagay palaging madali. :D
2. Well, baka mali lang ang approach. ;)
I've seen converts. Wala pa naman akong nakitang problema. We cannot always generalize that it will do more harm than good.
Post by: sharkey360 on Apr 30, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Post by: bass_nut on Apr 30, 2012 at 05:34 PM
<snp>
Disagreeing with or rejecting religious dogma or doctrines is not hatred. At least not hatred for PEOPLE.
I think there should be belief in God and belief in religion. I for one believe there may be a Supreme Being and while I respect and even believe in the wisdom and traditions of religion, I think by and large religious dogma is largely b.s.
so your chosen word [bs] is a way of simply disagreeing/rejecting only and WITHOUT hatred ? ::)
yes or no ?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 30, 2012 at 09:50 PM
1. Ok lang. Hindi naman lahat ng bagay palaging madali. :D
2. Well, baka mali lang ang approach. ;)
I've seen converts. Wala pa naman akong nakitang problema. We cannot always generalize that it will do more harm than good.
So-called "converts"/ "success" stories are most likely either bisexuals simply renouncing their gay side or they're still gay and putting up a front for your judgmental eyes. You can only modify sexual BEHAVIOR but you can't change sexual orientation. Time and time again, reputable scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors have said homosexuality is as normal as being left-handed. Kayo lang mga super-banal ang matitigas ang ulo at makikitid ang mga utak na ayaw pa rin tanggapin to.
It's actually not a laughing matter, Nelson. Lots of LGBT people are driven to suicide because they cannot change and they get rejected by their families or they seem to change and lead miserable lives because they feel that they're living a lie.
If their families just learn to accept them for who they are, there will be no problem. Trying to force or guilt people to try and change their sexual orientation just to save yourself a little discomfort or potential embarrassment or to satisfy your religious beliefs is wrong. Period.
Quote
so your chosen word [bs] is a way of simply disagreeing/rejecting only and WITHOUT hatred ? Roll Eyes
yes or no ?
No. Because I'm talking about a THING, not a person. I'm sorry but I don't bow to religious dogma the way I used to when I was younger. Much of religious dogma is either woefully outdated, irrelevant, downright silly and sometimes even harmful. Great if it inspires people to do good. Awful if it's used to control people's behavior through fear, guilt and shame.
Post by: barrister on Apr 30, 2012 at 10:12 PM
who defines what clothing can be worn by either man or woman?
Those laws are for Christians. If you are not a Christian, huwag mo nang intindihin yon kasi hindi para sa iyo yon.
But if you are a Christian, you yourself will decide, using your own conscience, whether or not you are cross-dressing. Then it's up to God to decide if you deliberately violated, or simply made an honest mistake.
did the bible also said it is wrong to act like a woman if you are a man? what i mean is yung pilantik ng daliri at manner of speaking? saang sitas makikita yan?
No, it is not a sin. Walang ganon sa bible.
If you mean talagang natural na may pilantik siya, hindi niya kasalanan yon kasi ginawa siyang ganon ng Diyos.
Huwag maniwala doon sa kesyo bawal daw ang "effeminate" sa 1 Cor. 6:9. Kakapiraso lang ang naiintindihan sa bibliya non, mahilig lang magdunung-dunungan. Hindi alam kung ano ang malakoi and arsenokoitai.
In the bible, Jesus talked about 3 kinds of eunuchs --- those who were born gay, those who were castrated as eunuchs, and those who are voluntarily celibate:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Mt. 19:12)
Therefore, kung ginawa siyang bading ng Diyos, hindi niya kasalanan na ganon siya.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 01, 2012 at 12:41 AM
So-called "converts"/ "success" stories are most likely either bisexuals simply renouncing their gay side or they're still gay and putting up a front for your judgmental eyes. You can only modify sexual BEHAVIOR but you can't change sexual orientation. Time and time again, reputable scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors have said homosexuality is as normal as being left-handed. Kayo lang mga super-banal ang matitigas ang ulo at makikitid ang mga utak na ayaw pa rin tanggapin to.
It's actually not a laughing matter, Nelson. Lots of LGBT people are driven to suicide because they cannot change and they get rejected by their families or they seem to change and lead miserable lives because they feel that they're living a lie.
If their families just learn to accept them for who they are, there will be no problem. Trying to force or guilt people to try and change their sexual orientation just to save yourself a little discomfort or potential embarrassment or to satisfy your religious beliefs is wrong. Period.
Yes. It's the sexual behavior i'm concerned with. Thanks for correcting me. I didn't mean to sound super-banal. With regards to living a lie are you referring to the usual "female trapped inside a male body" issue?
Tama naman na their families should accept them for who they are rather than rejecting or condemn them. And i also agree with you that forcing them to change is wrong.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 01, 2012 at 01:24 AM
Quote
With regards to living a lie are you referring to the usual "female trapped inside a male body" issue?
Living like they're pretending to be straight but they're not. "Female trapped inside a male body" applies only to transgendered individuals.
Post by: sharkey360 on May 01, 2012 at 08:08 AM
"Love thy neighbor" is preached from many a pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people.
In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the July issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.
The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.
"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."
Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.
While the study examined the link between religion, compassion and generosity, it did not directly examine the reasons for why highly religious people are less compelled by compassion to help others. However, researchers hypothesize that deeply religious people may be more strongly guided by a sense of moral obligation than their more non-religious counterparts.
"We hypothesized that religion would change how compassion impacts generous behavior," said study lead author Laura Saslow, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at UC Berkeley.
Saslow, who is now a postdoctoral scholar at UC San Francisco, said she was inspired to examine this question after an altruistic, nonreligious friend lamented that he had only donated to earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti after watching an emotionally stirring video of a woman being saved from the rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed.
"I was interested to find that this experience – an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers – was replicated in three large, systematic studies," Saslow said.
In the first experiment, researchers analyzed data from a 2004 national survey of more than 1,300 American adults. Those who agreed with such statements as "When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them" were also more inclined to show generosity in random acts of kindness, such as loaning out belongings and offering a seat on a crowded bus or train, researchers found.
When they looked into how much compassion motivated participants to be charitable in such ways as giving money or food to a homeless person, non-believers and those who rated low in religiosity came out ahead: "These findings indicate that although compassion is associated with pro-sociality among both less religious and more religious individuals, this relationship is particularly robust for less religious individuals," the study found.
In the second experiment, 101 American adults watched one of two brief videos, a neutral video or a heartrending one, which showed portraits of children afflicted by poverty. Next, they were each given 10 "lab dollars" and directed to give any amount of that money to a stranger. The least religious participants appeared to be motivated by the emotionally charged video to give more of their money to a stranger.
"The compassion-inducing video had a big effect on their generosity," Willer said. "But it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants."
In the final experiment, more than 200 college students were asked to report how compassionate they felt at that moment. They then played "economic trust games" in which they were given money to share – or not – with a stranger. In one round, they were told that another person playing the game had given a portion of their money to them, and that they were free to reward them by giving back some of the money, which had since doubled in amount.
Those who scored low on the religiosity scale, and high on momentary compassion, were more inclined to share their winnings with strangers than other participants in the study.
"Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people," Willer said.
http://www.sciencecodex.com/highly_religious_people_are_less_motivated_by_compassion_than_are_nonbelievers-90649
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 01, 2012 at 09:09 AM
Living like they're pretending to be straight but they're not. "Female trapped inside a male body" applies only to transgendered individuals.
Got it. So ang first reference nila is their feelings?
Post by: JT on May 01, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Post by: bananabond on May 02, 2012 at 07:35 PM
Sir barister ano ibig sabihin ni jesus dito na only god is good?
Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" -Mark 10:17
Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. -Mark 10:18
Post by: barrister on May 02, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Ang punto mo ba ay hindi Diyos si Kristo kasi ang Ama lang ang "good" at siya ay hindi "good"?
Post by: bananabond on May 03, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Post by: bananabond on May 03, 2012 at 11:15 AM
My thoughts? Her tweet doesn't make sense. ???
Sir barister can you please elaborate :)
Post by: indie boi on May 03, 2012 at 02:29 PM
You may have studied and memorize the whole bible, or even know hebrew and greek, or even expert in its laws and the laws of the land. My bible says unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven ... unless you repent, you shall likewise perish.
I'm curious, what do you mean by "my bible"?
Post by: JT on May 03, 2012 at 02:44 PM
I'm curious, what do you mean by "my bible"?
Ahhh, just an expression. For some, when always referring to what is written in the bible gets a tendency to say "my bible says".
Post by: barrister on May 03, 2012 at 06:09 PM
Sir barister can you please elaborate :)
Miriam Q's tweet doesn't make sense, kasi sabi niya it's not a sin. Hindi naman pala sin, e bakit may deception of the devil pang pag-uusapan?
No. Ibig sabihin ba ni jesus ay si god lang ang perfect? Did he somewhat implied na nagkakamali din siya?
No, hindi ganon yon. Ang ibig sabihin, Christ is also good because he is also God.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone..."
Jesus did not simply say, "I'm not God, so don't call me 'good,'" because that's not what Jesus meant.
Since the rich ruler was still a novice in spiritual matters, Jesus was indirectly telling him this --- You call me good, yet only God is good; therefore, are you aware that you are calling me God?
Therefore, Christ was not denying his divinity --- he was actually hinting that he is God.
But to an audience that is more knowledgable in spiritual matters, Christ directly called himself "good" --- "I am the good shepherd" (Mt. 10:11) Bakit good si Kristo? Di ba only God is good? Sabi ni Kristo, mas direkta pa --- "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) Di ba simple lang?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 03, 2012 at 08:39 PM
Post by: barrister on May 03, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Saan ba ang roots ng sign of the cross everytime nag-start ng prayer ng roman catholics? Yun in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Somebody told me na iba daw ang initial purpose nun. Ibang Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
No, halos ganon din ang original sign of the cross. Wala namang kakaibang origin yon. The earliest recorded reference to the sign of the cross was in the 2nd century by the author Tertullian.
Since hindi naman biblical ang sign of the cross, hindi na dapat gawing reference ang bible. Wikipedia lang, OK nang reference ;) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_Cross
Post by: sharkey360 on May 04, 2012 at 08:33 AM
The Catholic Church, at least from an outsider’s perspective, is in a state of turmoil. The Church is plagued with sex abuse scandals, driving Catholics into the loving embrace of other denominations.
The Church, of course, has never had an inclusive relationship with women. As other branches of Christianity have modernized, even allowing women into the Priesthood, Catholics have doubled down, becoming highly engaged in the American Republican war on women. The Church hierarchy has even gone so far as to order nuns to drop some of their social service and pursue more of the Church’s anti-birth control, anti-choice agenda. The nuns are having none of that, insisting that they will keep feeding the poor and working toward social justice.
It’s not just the women of the Catholic Church who are recognizing that backwards is not the direction you want to travel if you want to arrive in the future. In an OpEd in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Catholic Priest, Roy Bourgeois questions the Church’s subjugation of women, saying that the Bible calls for men and women to be equal. He even calls sexism ‘a sin.’
I met many devout Catholic women who were also called by God to be priests. Such women are rejected based on the church’s teaching that only baptized men may be ordained.
This makes no sense to me. Don’t we profess that God created men and women of equal worth and dignity? Doesn’t Scripture state clearly that “There is neither male nor female. In Christ Jesus you are one” (Galatians 3:28)? How can we men say our call from God is authentic, but the call women feel is not?
After much reflection, study, and prayer, I believe the exclusion of women from the priesthood is a grave injustice against women and our loving God, who calls both men and women to be priests. I also believe that to have a healthy, vibrant church, we need the wisdom, experiences, and voices of women in the priesthood.
The Vatican has referred to the ordination of women as “a grave scandal.” When most Catholics hear the word scandal, however, they think of the many priests who sexually abused children, and of the many bishops who covered up their horrific crimes.
Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard we try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is not the way of God.
Bless you, Father Bourgeois.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/03/catholic-priest-says-sexism-is-a-sin/
Post by: barrister on May 04, 2012 at 10:16 AM
Catholic Priest Says Sexism Is ‘A Sin’
...This makes no sense to me. Don’t we profess that God created men and women of equal worth and dignity? Doesn’t Scripture state clearly that “There is neither male nor female. In Christ Jesus you are one” (Galatians 3:28)? How can we men say our call from God is authentic, but the call women feel is not?
After much reflection, study, and prayer, I believe the exclusion of women from the priesthood is a grave injustice against women and our loving God, who calls both men and women to be priests. I also believe that to have a healthy, vibrant church, we need the wisdom, experiences, and voices of women in the priesthood.
...Bless you, Father Bourgeois.
Hindi naiintindihan ni Father yung binabasa niya. Galatians 3:28 is talking about salvation, not church heirarchy.
Under the Old Testament, only Jews were saved under Mosaic Law. But with Jesus Christ under the New Testament, salvation became open to all --- whether Jew or Gentile, male or female:
23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:23-29)
If salvation is open to all under the New Testament, does that automatically mean that under the same New Testament, women and men are now equal when it comes to church heirarchy?
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (1 Tim. 2:11)
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
Those are New Testament verses, unfortunately.
Post by: dpogs on May 04, 2012 at 12:16 PM
or head of a local church na babae.
and head of the family is the father... not mother.
Post by: ivannn on May 04, 2012 at 12:20 PM
therefore, walang "Pastora".
or head of a local church na babae.
and head of the family is the father... not mother.
noted. pero diba sa mga christians (pwede ba tayo mag name drop ng specific group or general term lang?)eh may mga pastora?
Post by: dpogs on May 04, 2012 at 12:25 PM
noted. pero diba sa mga christians (pwede ba tayo mag name drop ng specific group or general term lang?)eh may mga pastora?
mga pentecostal churches... maraming pastora...
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 04, 2012 at 01:09 PM
I see no reason why women can't be priests. The only reason Jesus only chose men as his official disciples is that people only indeed listened to men at the time. If Jesus came today, he'd choose a few women. Let's face it, a lot of the people doing the Church's good work these days are NUNS, not the bishops who are too busy telling women what to do with their bodies.
Post by: barrister on May 04, 2012 at 03:32 PM
A lot of the verses you cited are from St. Paul, not from Jesus, barrister.
The bible must be taken as a whole. And taking the bible as a whole, it says that women are not allowed to teach on spiritual matters.
I see no reason why women can't be priests. The only reason Jesus only chose men as his official disciples is that people only indeed listened to men at the time. If Jesus came today, he'd choose a few women. Let's face it, a lot of the people doing the Church's good work these days are NUNS, not the bishops who are too busy telling women what to do with their bodies.
I respect your view. That's much better than Fr. Bourgeois' take, because you acknowledge that it's just an opinion that is without biblical support.
What I find objectionable about Fr. Bourgeois' view is that he claims to find biblical support in Gal. 3:28, when a close analysis of the cited verse shows that the same is clearly inapplicable.
You are correct in saying that women can do the work of the church. In fact, women were not prohibited from doing the work of the ministry in the New Testament. For example:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Rom. 16:1-2)
In that verse, Phoebe, a woman, was a church leader in Cenchreae with the position of deacon.
How does that reconcile with the prohibition under 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35? Tignan natin kung masagot ni sir JT, eksperto yata sa bibliya, e... :D
Post by: JT on May 04, 2012 at 04:33 PM
The bible must be taken as a whole. And taking the bible as a whole, it says that women are not allowed to teach on spiritual matters.
I respect your view. That's much better than Fr. Bourgeois' take, because you acknowledge that it's just an opinion that is without biblical support.
What I find objectionable about Fr. Bourgeois' view is that he claims to find biblical support in Gal. 3:28, when a close analysis of the cited verse shows that the same is clearly inapplicable.
You are correct in saying that women can do the work of the church. In fact, women were not prohibited from doing the work of the ministry in the New Testament. For example:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. 2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Rom. 16:1-2)
In that verse, Phoebe, a woman, was a church leader in Cenchreae with the position of deacon.
How does that reconcile with the prohibition under 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35? Tignan natin kung masagot ni sir JT, eksperto yata sa bibliya, e... :D
First of all, no one can even say that he is expert in the bible. Bible says "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part". I only have the confidence to answer when I know it is clearly written in the scriptures. And we should not be taking the accolades for ourself. Even Jesus Christ has given the credit to God when someone regard Him as good and for all the things He has done.
To reconcile 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Cor. 14:34-35 with the other verse, it is clearly written that Women are not allowed to teach spiritual matters TO MEN (esp in the church). So they can minister to women, youth and children. And handle other positions in the church. The very reason why there are women pastors is because none of the men (in that church) are equipped or even committed to take the pastoral calling. But I personally not agreeable on this arrangement, only men should be allowed as it is written.
Anyway, this was further explained in www.gotquestions.org so I extracted for your reading:
Question: "Women pastors / preachers? What does the Bible say about women in ministry?"
Answer: There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority.
There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.
Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.
Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).
In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.
The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.
Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).
God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.
Hope this helps ....
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 04, 2012 at 07:49 PM
The bible must be taken as a whole. And taking the bible as a whole, it says that women are not allowed to teach on spiritual matters.
Well, in that case, we must outlaw shellfish and pork, legalize slavery, make it a law that a woman must marry her rapist, make adultery and working on the Sabbath day a sin worthy of stoning to death, etc.
I strongly suggest you browse through The Year of Living Biblically by AJ Jacobs. If you are really serious that the Bible must be taken as a whole.
Post by: barrister on May 04, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Well, in that case, we must outlaw shellfish and pork, legalize slavery, make it a law that a woman must marry her rapist, make adultery and working on the Sabbath day a sin worthy of stoning to death, etc.
By doing that, you would be taking the bible partially, not as a whole.
Let's take your shellfish example. In the Old Testament, shellfish were unclean under Mosaic Law. In the New Testament, Christ "declared all foods clean":
18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19)
Are shellfish still prohibited? Not anymore.
If you think shellfish are still prohibited, you are taking the bible partially, because you are only reading the law for the ancient Israelites.
If you take the bible as a whole, you would see that it is the declaration of Jesus in the New Testament that governs Christians today.
I strongly suggest you browse through The Year of Living Biblically by AJ Jacobs. If you are really serious that the Bible must be taken as a whole.
I am serious that the bible must be taken as a whole. Which is precisely why I wouldn't read AJ Jacobs.
Mal. 4:4 says: Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.
For whom were the decrees and laws of Moses given? For all Israel lang. Hindi kasama ang Pilipinas doon. ;)
Post by: barrister on May 08, 2012 at 12:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=L5e-1sBM9FE&NR=1
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 10, 2012 at 12:37 PM
For one, Abraham is not a Jew himself.
And the harlot Rahab is even in Jesus' lineage.
The Jews (Israel) enjoyed God's blessing as a chosen nation, but it is not synonymous to (saved) 'salvation'!
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Homosexuals are not distinct life from a man (or a woman). Thus, at birth, homosexuals does not exist.
However, homosexuals is a behavior developed overtime (environment is one big factor in such development of inclination). It is no different when you exist in a barbaric culture - you can not help it, you learn it, becomes part of the system - the norm.
To have those inclination or behavior is not bad in itself (sin). However, to indulge your body to a design not intended for it, becomes 'sin'. Of course, to those people who have no basis of morality other than pluralism, the idea of sin (in both lusts [mental] and deeds) does not hold.
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 10, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Quote
Well, in that case, we must outlaw shellfish and pork, legalize slavery, make it a law that a woman must marry her rapist, make adultery and working on the Sabbath day a sin worthy of stoning to death, etc.
The acts of the chosen nation that screwed up God's care for them is not the standard to be followed.
In fact, all you have said have been written in the Bible for those who pay attention to take heed - it does come with it great punishment that until now is being paid for by Israel.
Jesus came to correct all those distortions the Jewish political and religious leaders made of God's laws. And after apostle Paul was given the full picture of God's design (the OT & NT happenings), he was able to explain so clearly the Mosaic law clearly because he is a lawyer himself - and he was able to connect the dots - how everything leads to God's deliverance of mankind.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 10, 2012 at 01:17 PM
Homosexuals are not distinct life from a man (or a woman). Thus, at birth, homosexuals does not exist.
Not true. Homosexuality exists in nature. Lots of lower species of animals have been observed by scientists as exhibiting homosexual behavior.
Quote
However, homosexuals is a behavior developed overtime (environment is one big factor in such development of inclination).
I've known gay people who grew up in conservative religious homes and conservative religious communities and macho military and/or athletic families. So this argument doesn't really fly.
Post by: barrister on May 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM
There is no such thing as 'only Jews were saved under Mosaic law'!
For one, Abraham is not a Jew himself.
I said, "Under the Old Testament, only Jews were saved under Mosaic Law." Therefore, the "Testament" or "Covenant" I was referring to is the Mosaic covenant.
The Abrahamic covenant, also known as the "Brit bein HaBetarim," is different but connected.
There is no such thing as 'only Jews were saved under Mosaic law'!
...The Jews (Israel) enjoyed God's blessing as a chosen nation, but it is not synonymous to (saved) 'salvation'!
That's your opinion. I'll let the bible speak for itself:
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. (Jn. 4:22)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. (Rom. 1:16)
And the harlot Rahab is even in Jesus' lineage.
Malayo na yata sa issue. Pero magbibigay na rin ako ng comment:
It was common in those days for different people to have the same name.
It is one thing to say that Rahab is in Jesus' lineage, but it is another thing to jump to the conclusion that she and the harlot Rahab are one and the same.
http://www.israelofgod.org/rahab.htm
http://study.faithweb.com/study/Was%20Jesus%20of%20Rahab/Rahab.html
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 11, 2012 at 12:13 PM
According to the article there was a gay couple who got married and eventually became SAINTS.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 11, 2012 at 04:12 PM
Same sex marriage was indeed practiced during the early days of Christianity. (http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/22806986381/the-time-when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite)
According to the article there was a gay couple who got married and eventually became SAINTS.
Depends on what transpired in thier life and the definition of saints.
Post by: ATJr. on May 11, 2012 at 04:31 PM
are there gay lions or tigers, or chimps or apes, are there gay or lesbians among those?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 11, 2012 at 04:35 PM
guys marrying gays.....lesbians with another female...sure recipe for the extinction of the homo sapiens species....There are 7 billion people in the world and counting. I doubt the 10% who are gay & lesbian will have an affect on the population. Some gays and lesbians actually DO reproduce. Either through artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization or simply going into the closet and having children with opposite sex partners.
Quote
are there gay lions or tigers, or chimps or apes, are there gay or lesbians among those?
Yes to all of that. There are also gay dolphins, gay dogs, gay cats, gay penguins, etc.
If you wanna discuss the nitty-gritty of homosexuality and gay rights without religion, go to the LGBT thread. Thanks!
Post by: sharkey360 on May 12, 2012 at 09:25 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/549327_293511670735699_130148817071986_657781_2011738014_n.jpg)
Post by: sharkey360 on May 12, 2012 at 09:31 AM
Post by: ATJr. on May 12, 2012 at 09:35 AM
There are 7 billion people in the world and counting. I doubt the 10% who are gay & lesbian will have an affect on the population. Some gays and lesbians actually DO reproduce. Either through artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization or simply going into the closet and having children with opposite sex partners.
Yes to all of that. There are also gay dolphins, gay dogs, gay cats, gay penguins, etc.
If you wanna discuss the nitty-gritty of homosexuality and gay rights without religion, go to the LGBT thread. Thanks!
me na meet ka na ba na "mangyan" or aeta na gay?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 12, 2012 at 09:46 AM
me na meet ka na ba na "mangyan" or aeta na gay?
May nagtanong na din nito sa akin.
Post by: markcrenz on May 12, 2012 at 09:53 AM
me na meet ka na ba na "mangyan" or aeta na gay?
May nagtanong na din nito sa akin.shhh... wag nyo sabihing na-meet nyo na 'ko! ;D
Post by: ATJr. on May 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Post by: JT on May 12, 2012 at 10:22 AM
me na meet ka na ba na "mangyan" or aeta na gay?
Actually it not impossible that there is. Because bible says, the root is idolatry which is prevalent to any tribe or race. Its the spirit of idolatry initially at work which allows the spirit of homosexuality to operate.
The bible says in Ephesians 6:12:
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
ROmans 1:21-26 says:
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to SEXUAL IMPURITY for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
I grew up in Tondo and in the 70's & 80's, maraming takot sa lugar na ito dahil sa mga siga, maton at madalas ang riot. Yet Tondo folks are deeply devoted to Santo Nino and deeply religious. When I visited in the early 2000, I got a big surprise. Dami pa rin siga at maton pero biglang dami bading at tomboy. But still Tondo folks are deeply devoted to Santo Nino and deeply religious.When I visited again in the late 2000, ang daming siga at maton na bading. But now I can sense the spirit of Atheism and Agnosticism is at full operation. Getting the people even the true faithful ones to fall away from faith. I somehow see this pattern in every culture where homosexuality is becoming prevalent. See how Australia, New Zealand and even Europe started. Europe was once a setting place for God's revival. And now at work in the US.
Pls note, idolatry is not confined to statues. The idolatry of modern man is now getting God to conformed with their beliefs and lifestyle. Instead of us conforming to the One True and Holy God as it is written in the bible. People will only take a portion in the bible and use it conform to their standards so that they loose guilt and receive acceptance from the god they have created in their minds. I very much agree with my good friend here that you have to take the bible in its totality, in its full context.
My advice in getting the right understanding from the bible is "You dont read what you believe but believe what you have read". Its either you believe in all that is written or to none at all. Because believing partially will lead you to deception.
Post by: ATJr. on May 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM
Quote
"You dont read what you believe but believe what you have read".
yan din kaya ang naging katuwiran ni David Koresh kaya inari nya ang mga babae sa secta nya bilang mg asawa nya?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM
People will only take a portion in the bible and use it conform to their standards so that they loose guilt and receive acceptance from the god they have created in their minds. I very much agree with my good friend here that you have to take the bible in its totality, in its full context.
My advice in getting the right understanding from the bible is "You dont read what you believe but believe what you have read". Its either you believe in all that is written or to none at all. Because believing partially will lead you to deception.
Cherry Picking.
Post by: JT on May 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM
yan din kaya ang naging katuwiran ni David Koresh kaya inari nya ang mga babae sa secta nya bilang mg asawa nya?
David wants his follower to just believe what he says because its in the bible. His word, not God's Word. That is why he was able to decieve many. Bible says be like the Bereans who check the scriptures for what is being taught. Bible also says "You will know them by their fruit". It is by their doing (how they lead their life) and not just by their sayings that it affirms they are from God.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 12, 2012 at 11:12 AM
We also have to understand that the Bible was written in the different time and a different era so a lot of the things that are written there may not be relevant or even compatible with our lives today.
Quote
My advice in getting the right understanding from the bible is "You dont read what you believe but believe what you have read". Its either you believe in all that is written or to none at all. Because believing partially will lead you to deception.
So you believe women should be subservient to men and slavery is okay? Because there are even passages in the NEW Testament that says that this is so. We all cherry-pick, my friend. But personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Post by: sharkey360 on May 12, 2012 at 02:12 PM
This is an article that the prayerful ones do not want you to read.
The 12 Best Reasons Why The U.S. Is Not Now, And Never Should Be, A Christian Nation
Christians today have the same problem as their fellow believers of two hundred years ago: “One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian.” –The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968.
The ‘Christian’ label did not even fit some of our early Presidents. However, whether religious or not, the great intellects of democracy had a vision of all that the United States could be. They wouldn’t have dreamed of imposing religion on their fellow Americans; they knew that this nation’s greatness came from not being a Christian one. In their own emphatic words:
1) “Enforced uniformity confounds civil and religious liberty and denies the principles of Christianity and civility. No man shall be required to worship or maintain a worship against his will.” Roger Williams, Puritan minister and founder of Rhode Island, in The Bloudy Tenet of Persecution, 1644.
2) “As the government of the United States of America is not on any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims), – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” –Treaty of Tripoli
–initiated under President George Washington, 1796
–signed into law by President John Adams, 1797
–ratified unanimously by the Senate, 1797
–Published in full in all 13 states, with no record of complaint or dissent.
3) “But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.”–John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
4) “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT
5) “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Miller, 1808 [note that this does not say Christian religion; it refers to all religions, equally]
6) “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” –Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
7) “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” –James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774
8) “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?” –James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795
9) “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people… A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” –James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785 .
10) “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” –James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance
11) “He had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term– he had faith in laws, principles, causes and effects.” –Supreme Court Justice David Davis, on Abraham Lincoln
12) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” –First Amendment, Constitution of the United States
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/11/the-12-best-reasons/
Post by: ATJr. on May 12, 2012 at 02:26 PM
Quote
The Bible is not written by God. But by men.
that is why one man read the bible and concluded that Jesus is not God, so he established his own religion....
others read it and concluded that Mary mother of Jesus should not be idolised and so started their own religion...
still one read the bible and concluded that tighting is no longer applicable and so has his own followings now, owns a tv station and continues to grow....
another read the bible and saw that he can have this "siksik, liglig at umaapaw na wealth" and so also started his own religion....
another saw it as Jesus is the name above anyother name......
where do this end or where is this leading to? not to hell i hope not....... ;D
Post by: barrister on May 12, 2012 at 03:11 PM
Why do some of our fellow Pinoys believe that America was founded as a Christian/Catholic country and that each and everyone of their citizens must bow to and be dictated to the pope?
They don't care about the Pope. Don't confuse Christianity with Catholicism. The US Christians, who are mostly Protestant, don't like the Catholics.
Why do some Pinoys believe that America was founded as a Christian nation? Saan pa naman natin makukuha ang idea na yon, e di nanggaling na rin sa mga Amerikanong religious right. That's nothing but revisionist propaganda from their ultra-religious.
Most of the American founding fathers were Deists, but they did not intend that America should be founded as a so-called "Christian Nation."
In fact, the opposite can been seen in their writings. Some examples:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." (Thomas Jefferson)
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." (James Madison)
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." (Thomas Paine)
.
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." (Bejamin Franklin)
Post by: sharkey360 on May 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM
They don't care about the Pope. Don't confuse Christianity with Catholicism. The US Christians, who are mostly Protestant, don't like the Catholics.
Why do some Pinoys believe that America was founded as a Christian nation? Saan pa naman natin makukuha ang idea na yon, e di nanggaling na rin sa mga Amerikanong religious right. That's nothing but revisionist propaganda from their ultra-religious.
Most of the American founding fathers were Deists, but they did not intend that America should be founded as a so-called "Christian Nation."
In fact, the opposite can been seen in their writings. Some examples:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." (Thomas Jefferson)
"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." (James Madison)
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." (Thomas Paine)
.
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." (Bejamin Franklin)
I got to talk with some people randomly about what they think about the U.S. and the Philippines in regards to religion and society. Most of them believe that our nation and America are both Christian nations and that each nation's constitutions were written based on the Christian bible, even though the writings or translations were not obvious.
Post by: barrister on May 13, 2012 at 12:33 AM
The US constitution did not intend to found a "Christian nation." Thankfully, the Phil. constituion was patterned after the US constitution, that's why our constitution is not based on the idea of founding a Christian nation either.
However, we do have a religious reference in the preamble of our constitution, which mentions a Supreme Being. The 1935 and 1973 constitutions say, "Divine Providence;" the 1987 constitution says, "Almighty God."
And we also have a provision in the 1987 constitution which is obviously based on the strict Catholic anti-abortion agenda --- "It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception" (Sec. 12, Art. II), ensuring that neither law nor court order can ever allow any form of abortion.
As it is, may dalawang blatantly religious items pa rin na nakalusot. Buti na lang based on the US constitution. Kung hindi, baka naging tadtad ng Catholic agenda ang constitution natin.
Post by: sharkey360 on May 13, 2012 at 05:16 AM
I often hear the proud Pinoy claim that we are "the only Catholic country in Asia." What's so great about that? Shows you the mindset of the average Pinoy.
The US constitution did not intend to found a "Christian nation." Thankfully, the Phil. constituion was patterned after the US constitution, that's why our constitution is not based on the idea of founding a Christian nation either.
However, we do have a religious reference in the preamble of our constitution, which mentions a Supreme Being. The 1935 and 1973 constitutions say, "Divine Providence;" the 1987 constitution says, "Almighty God."
And we also have a provision in the 1987 constitution which is obviously based on the strict Catholic anti-abortion agenda --- "It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception" (Sec. 12, Art. II), ensuring that neither law nor court order can ever allow any form of abortion.
As it is, may dalawang blatantly religious items pa rin na nakalusot. Buti na lang based on the US constitution. Kung hindi, baka naging tadtad ng Catholic agenda ang constitution natin.
I do remember bishop Teodoro Bacani being one of the chosen people on the drafting of the 1987 constitution.
By the way, some members of a certain Christian worship group claimed that the so-called protection of the unborn was also written in the older versions of the constitution.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 13, 2012 at 06:41 AM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 13, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Does an unborn baby have soul?
Well, that's the argument, isn't it? Some people believe that human life begins once the egg is fertilized. The problem with that argument is that a lot of times, a fertilized egg will often miscarry and is flushed down the woman's system like a heavier than usual period. That means every sexually active woman out there is a potential murderess.
Post by: ATJr. on May 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Post by: bass_nut on May 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Well, that's the argument, isn't it? Some people believe that human life begins once the egg is fertilized. The problem with that argument is that a lot of times, a fertilized egg will often miscarry and is flushed down the woman's system like a heavier than usual period. That means every sexually active woman out there is a potential murderess.
how often would a pregnant mother experience miscarriage/spontaneous abortion ?
was miscarriage a willful and intended case by a pregnant female such that she would be a potential murderer as you imply ?
when does Human Life begin ?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 13, 2012 at 12:57 PM
If a pregnant physically/sexually active woman is fully aware of the dangers posed on her pregnancy by her activity, and yet still pursues the activity despite doctor's advice, isn't that intentional or willful?
Post by: bass_nut on May 13, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Ako, i believe it starts with conception.
same here, Master Nelson.
If a pregnant physically/sexually active woman is fully aware of the dangers posed on her pregnancy by her activity, and yet still pursues the activity despite doctor's advice, isn't that intentional or willful?
we've seen workaholic pregnant women do their daily chores up to a few hours before delivery. the intention to kill the baby was absent. my wife was on 24 hours duty in the hospital when she gave birth to our bunso.
there are few cases when doctors will advise full bed rest. the doctor should exert effort to explain to the patient as clear as possible the possible complication(s). most often, patients would comply.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 13, 2012 at 04:00 PM
when does Human Life begin ?
If you ask me, human life begins when the fetus has developed brain activity.
Post by: bass_nut on May 13, 2012 at 05:09 PM
If you ask me, human life begins when the fetus has developed brain activity.
and that would be when ?
and through what means would you know ?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 13, 2012 at 07:01 PM
and that would be when ?
and through what means would you know ?
According to my research, it's 25 weeks into the pregnancy.
Post by: bass_nut on May 13, 2012 at 09:42 PM
According to my research, it's 25 weeks into the pregnancy.
how would a developed brain activity be confirmed ?
btw, what is developed brain activity ?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 13, 2012 at 09:53 PM
how would a developed brain activity be confirmed ?
btw, what is developed brain activity ?
Ask a doctor how they did it.
Brain waves, I'm guessing.
Post by: bass_nut on May 13, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Ask a doctor how they did it.
Brain waves, I'm guessing.
how do we determine brain waves of a 25 weeks old baby inside a mother's uterus ?
what form(s) of waves do a doctor expect to see ?
If you ask me, human life begins when the fetus has developed brain activity.so you are not sure on your basis regarding when human life begins ?
Post by: Pillow on May 14, 2012 at 12:21 AM
when does Human Life begin ?
Just be glad our lawmakers aren't as extreme as this:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pregnancy-begins-2-weeks-before-conception-now-the-law-in-arizona/politics/2012/04/13/37993
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 14, 2012 at 12:24 AM
Just be glad our lawmakers aren't as extreme as this:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pregnancy-begins-2-weeks-before-conception-now-the-law-in-arizona/politics/2012/04/13/37993
I'm pretty sure Jo Imbong is preparing something like that in her arsenal.
Post by: bass_nut on May 14, 2012 at 08:49 AM
If you ask me, human life begins when the fetus has developed brain activity.
According to my research, it's 25 weeks into the pregnancy.
klaus, any site/link you want to share ? TIA
Post by: Pillow on May 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM
I'm pretty sure Jo Imbong is preparing something like that in her arsenal.
I retract my statement about our lawmakers not being extreme. I just remembered a news about a certain senator (mang Johnny was it?) who said that masturbation is a form of abortion. Ours aren't just extreme but senile.
Post by: barrister on May 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Just be glad our lawmakers aren't as extreme as this:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pregnancy-begins-2-weeks-before-conception-now-the-law-in-arizona/politics/2012/04/13/37993
Compared to Pinoys, that still wouldn't be considered extreme. Abortion in the US remains legal in the first trimester of pregnancy, except that the Arizona law redefines what first trimester of pregnancy means.
If you want the holiest religious nutjobs, the Pinoys are hard to beat. There are Pinoy groups who believe the use of condoms is abortion. Try that for extreme.
RH Bill is worse than Martial Law! (Lito Atienza):
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=680102&publicationSubCategoryId=500
RH Bill is worse than earthquakes and tsunamis! (Hilario Davide)
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20110326-327785/Davide-RH-bill-worse-than-earthquakes-tsunamis
RH Bill is Terrorism! (CBCP President):
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101226-310988/RH-bill-is-terrorismCBCP-head
I retract my statement about our lawmakers not being extreme. I just remembered a news about a certain senator (mang Johnny was it?) who said that masturbation is a form of abortion. Ours aren't just extreme but senile.
That's black propaganda from the pro-RH groups. That's not what Enrile said.
Enrile merely said that withdrawal "interferes with the natural process." He did not say it's the same as abortion. It's the bloggers who are making it appear that Enrile said that. For example:
http://urbanmeter.weebly.com/8/post/2011/10/masturbation_is_abortion.html
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 14, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Damn, some people actually believe sex is really solely for procreation. They don't like it when people are having sex without making babies.
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 14, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Not true. Homosexuality exists in nature. Lots of lower species of animals have been observed by scientists as exhibiting homosexual behavior.
I've known gay people who grew up in conservative religious homes and conservative religious communities and macho military and/or athletic families. So this argument doesn't really fly.
Well, well, those pesky 'global warming' scientists - fond of being manipulated by big government!
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 14, 2012 at 05:26 PM
I said, "Under the Old Testament, only Jews were saved under Mosaic Law." Therefore, the "Testament" or "Covenant" I was referring to is the Mosaic covenant.
The Abrahamic covenant, also known as the "Brit bein HaBetarim," is different but connected.
You are confusing in putting 'saved' under Mosaic Law. There is no such thing (saved) in the mosaic law. The Mosaic Law's intent is to declare (show) everybody under sin.
Gal 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[e] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God --
That's your opinion. I'll let the bible speak for itself:
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. (Jn. 4:22)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. (Rom. 1:16)
You are quoting verses in your opinion as well.
The above verse do not speak about Jews owning salvation, or has the upper hand in being saved. John 4:22 just gave the woman reason not to trust her jealousy of Jews by citing that Jesus Himself is come out of the Jews' heritage.
Romans 1:16 basically addresses a gentile crowd, also showing Jesus, being a Jew (as human), His salvation offer is also for the Gentiles.
It is true that in OT, God did save some Jews (but also some Gentiles) - but not because of the Mosaic Law as clearly discussed by Paul in his Romans - and in Galatians' discourses.
Malayo na yata sa issue. Pero magbibigay na rin ako ng comment:
It was common in those days for different people to have the same name.
It is one thing to say that Rahab is in Jesus' lineage, but it is another thing to jump to the conclusion that she and the harlot Rahab are one and the same.
http://www.israelofgod.org/rahab.htm
http://study.faithweb.com/study/Was%20Jesus%20of%20Rahab/Rahab.html
I will not comment, but you may also be jumping to conclusion that Rahab is different from the other Rahab!
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 14, 2012 at 05:28 PM
Same sex marriage was indeed practiced during the early days of Christianity. (http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/22806986381/the-time-when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite)
According to the article there was a gay couple who got married and eventually became SAINTS.
their definition of saints I would say. The Bible has different definition of saints.
guys marrying gays.....lesbians with another female...sure recipe for the extinction of the homo sapiens species....
are there gay lions or tigers, or chimps or apes, are there gay or lesbians among those?
;D - I think global warming scientists observed some sexual activities of homosexual animals similar to what humans do! Very credible conclusions indeed!
Yes to all of that. There are also gay dolphins, gay dogs, gay cats, gay penguins, etc.
If you wanna discuss the nitty-gritty of homosexuality and gay rights without religion, go to the LGBT thread. Thanks!
Yes, yes, we know they are coming! Though the dolphins, dogs, cats & penguin were not cited!
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Comm'on, fill the cup to the brim - before it is poured to the world, I mean the judgment reserved to them.
I found this online.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/549327_293511670735699_130148817071986_657781_2011738014_n.jpg)
Gosh, will they have offspring as the black people? It will be a great miracle! Got a chill off my spine!
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 14, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Does an unborn baby have soul?
Does a human being has soul?
Is the unborn baby human?
When does it get soul - upon conception or in the delivery room?
Post by: sharkey360 on May 14, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Barry Goldwater’s War Against The Religious Right
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/goldwater1-300x238.jpg)
“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” ~ Barry Goldwater
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/13/barry-goldwaters-war-against-the-religious-right/
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 14, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Quote
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1. This was said by St. Paul, not by Jesus Christ. Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality. Nada. Zero. Zilch. St. Paul never even met Jesus Christ and only was a Christian AFTER His Death/Resurrection/Ascenion into Heaven.
2. St. Paul hated human sexuality. It's his teachings that the Church uses to guilt, repress and control its flock to do their bidding.
3. He seems to be talking more of gay prostitution not gay love.
Post by: barrister on May 14, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Comm'on, fill the cup to the brim - before it is poured to the world, I mean the judgment reserved to them.
Again, you did not understand what you read.
Rom. 1:22-27 says: 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The verses are talking about shrine prostitution.
"(I)mages made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles" refer to temple idols. Temple prostitution is a part of the ceremonies of those pagan gods.
"BECAUSE OF THIS," says verse 26, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Because of what? Because of their pagan idol worship and shrine prostitution, not because they were born gay.
When God gave them over to their shameful lusts, they abandoned their natural relations with women, and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Therefore, those men were heterosexuals who had sexual relations with women, in accordance with their "natural" sexual orientation, before they engaged in homosexual acts in the pagan temple -- acts that were unnatural to their heterosexuality.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 15, 2012 at 09:07 AM
When God gave them over to their shameful lusts, they abandoned their natural relations with women, and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Therefore, those men were heterosexuals who had sexual relations with women, in accordance with their "natural" sexual orientation, before they engaged in homosexual acts in the pagan temple -- acts that were unnatural to their heterosexuality.
The way i read your explanation, parang their "homosexual acts" is result of paganism?
Post by: barrister on May 15, 2012 at 09:32 AM
The verses tell us about groups of former Christians who converted to paganism and joined cults that engaged in sex orgies and prostitution as part of their rituals.
They were originally heterosexual activities because they were part of the fertility rites that were common in the pagan fertility religions in Rome at the time.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 15, 2012 at 09:49 AM
Post by: barrister on May 15, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Post by: ATJr. on May 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM
And yun sa Sodom, is not paganism but norm talaga sa town na yun?
di ba sodomy ang ikinaso kay Inwhar Ibrahim?
yan din ang practice ng mga taga middle east, kahit sa mga babae nila, dahil nga kailangan virgin pa sa araw ng kasal.... :D
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM
1. This was said by St. Paul, not by Jesus Christ. Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality. Nada. Zero. Zilch. St. Paul never even met Jesus Christ and only was a Christian AFTER His Death/Resurrection/Ascenion into Heaven.
I can only say that in the 4 gospel, Jesus never mentioned about gays.
But Paul never met Jesus thing? You got it wrong - he is as qualified as the 12 disciples to be an apostle! He is part of the Pharisees' group.
Yes, he became a Christian in his (2nd) personal encounter with Jesus!
2. St. Paul hated human sexuality. It's his teachings that the Church uses to guilt, repress and control its flock to do their bidding.
Paul did not hate human sexuality! He gave us realization that our enemy is around us (cosmic) powers of the air - which is the same power that drove the people in Jesus day to crucify Him, albeit to their disadvantage.
The same power is the one that prods human to pervert the use of their body for the consumption of their lust - not only on the aspect of sexual inclinations.
Few people understood the fallen state of men - it will always try to run into all evil ways unless restrained!
Your parents must have understood when you are just a toddler (just like everybody else) that to leave you without being taught or scolded sometimes, is because you can not discern the difference between safe and dangerous - not because they hated your own way of explorations! Duh!
3. He seems to be talking more of gay prostitution not gay love.
::)
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Again, you did not understand what you read.
"BECAUSE OF THIS," says verse 26, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Because of what? Because of their pagan idol worship and shrine prostitution, not because they were born gay.
When God gave them over to their shameful lusts, they abandoned their natural relations with women, and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Therefore, those men were heterosexuals who had sexual relations with women, in accordance with their "natural" sexual orientation, before they engaged in homosexual acts in the pagan temple -- acts that were unnatural to their heterosexuality.
Again, I think you are the one who did not understood what you read.
In fact, you acknowledged I got it right when you say your last part: "they engaged in homosexual acts in the pagan temple -- acts that were unnatural to their heterosexuality".
I did not cite the reason for their perversion (as in your case - paganism). What I cited is the practice itself - the perversion of body use. Though you have a classic way of explaining these 2 verses - but your explanation excludes the bigger picture of man's fallen state.
The practice in Sodom and the one cited in Romans are basically in the same league. They may have their respective variations, they may have different situations, but the end result is just the same - because the principle that is at work at both of them is the same - man in his fallen state - powerless to do anything good and acceptable before God!
The Mosaic law have already provided the verdict - man's actions will only show the accuracy of this law.
I can further tease you to explain what you think of: "When God gave them over to their shameful lusts, they abandoned their natural relations with women, and were inflamed with lust for one another."
Bottomline, the "gay" description in man's behavior is not something that is unacceptable before God. What Paul really discussed to early churches is the practice of perversion (not only the gays' unnatural use of body - however, this is also included).
In one epistle, being effeminate have been cited as well - basically "to abstain from all appearance of evil" - not just the act of doing it. Of course, this can be debated.
Post by: barrister on May 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM
In one epistle, being effeminate have been cited as well - basically "to abstain from all appearance of evil" - not just the act of doing it. Of course, this can be debated.
Again, you did not understand what you read:
Huwag maniwala doon sa kesyo bawal daw ang "effeminate" sa 1 Cor. 6:9. Kakapiraso lang ang naiintindihan sa bibliya non, mahilig lang magdunung-dunungan. Hindi alam kung ano ang malakoi and arsenokoitai.
You not only failed to understand the bible, you also failed to understand my posts.
Post by: JT on May 15, 2012 at 02:17 PM
The Bible is not written by God. But by men. It has also gone thousands of translations, interpretations and revisions throughout the centuries as well.
This what makes the Bible unique among all books ever written. It comprises of multiple books written by man from different generations and different walks of life (prince, shepherd, fishermen,tax collector, doctor, teachers of the law, etc) and yet there is harmony in its messages within each books.
Yes, it is written by men. But since these men comes from different generations, how can they manage to have a common theme? Unless there is only one AUTHOR right? And that author has lived from Genesis til Revelations were written. Now, who can do that?
Have u ever read a book series or watch a movie series having different authors or writers/directors? What do you notice? How about reading or watching the Lord of The Rings trilogy, having one author and one director? You see harmony in the three episodes.
With regards to translations, there are only 3 types:
1. Literal translation. Attempts to keep the exact words and phrases of the original. It is faithful to the original text, but sometimes hard to understand. Keeps a constant historical distance. Examples: King James Version (KJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB).
2. Dynamic equivalent (thought for thought) translation. Attempts to keep a constant historical distance with regard to history and facts, but updates the writing style and grammar. Examples: New International Version (NIV), Revised English Bible (REB).
3. Free translation (paraphrase). Translates the ideas from the original text but without being constrained by the original words or language. Seeks to eliminate historical distance. Readable, but possibly not precise. Examples: The Living Bible (TLB), The Message.
Each to cater the level of the maturity of the reader. And to give more depth in learning and understanding the text since the originals are in the Hebrew and Greek. Both Hebrew and Greek has deep words that is quite difficult to translate in one english word.
Post by: JT on May 15, 2012 at 02:25 PM
1. This was said by St. Paul, not by Jesus Christ. Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality. Nada. Zero. Zilch. St. Paul never even met Jesus Christ and only was a Christian AFTER His Death/Resurrection/Ascenion into Heaven.
2. St. Paul hated human sexuality. It's his teachings that the Church uses to guilt, repress and control its flock to do their bidding.
3. He seems to be talking more of gay prostitution not gay love.
Ok, lets see what Jesus has to say then. Jesus concerns with the motivations of the individual’s heart rather than mere outward conformity to accepted social norms or the code of the Law, Jesus spoke of sexual sins as originating in the fallen nature of man’s innermost self.
He says in Matthew 15:1-20 defilement comes from within:
"Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— then he need not honor his father or mother.’Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.’
”When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”
Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries(MOICHEIA), fornications (PORNEIAI), thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
In this passage adultery and fornication are both mentioned. Adultery of course refers to sexual infidelity when one is married. Fornication is usually taken to mean heterosexual intercourse before marriage. However the Greek word translated “fornication,” (porneia, from whence our word “pornography”), is actually a broad word used in the Bible “to denote any form of sexual behavior which is not in accord with Old Testament regulations and the teaching of the apostles…” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1982). HOMOSEXUAL behavior is without doubt included in the meaning of this word.
And in Mark 7:21-23 Jesus says,
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries (MOICHEIA), fornications (PORNEIA), murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness(ASELGEIA) an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
So you still believe Jesus never spoke one word about homosexuality? I can say that he actually spoke two. In His sin list in Mark 7, we find two words that arguably include homosexual behavior within the scope of their meaning. One is the term PORNEIA, a word which has been much studied and commented upon. The other is the word ASELGEIA, a word on which precious little study has been done. The great Bible commentator William Barclay considers aselgeia to be possibly the “ugliest word” in the list of New Testament sins. He capsulizes the word’s meaning as “utter shamelessness.” It is variously translated as “licentiousness, ”“wantonness,” and “lasciviousness.” It’s a word that Jesus (through Mark, his translator) might easily have enlisted as a euphemism or synonym for homosexual activity and other similarly shocking behavior forbidden by the Jewish law.
Actually, what Jesus was interested in above all else was love. Love seeks the best interests of the beloved. Love gives unselfishly rather than taking. Koine Greek has several words for love: affection, brotherly love, and agape. There are also numerous words for lust, and lust frequently disguises itself as love in our society. Homosexuality is not merely an issue of genital sexual conduct — it has to do with distortions of what the Bible means by real love.
Post by: ATJr. on May 15, 2012 at 05:23 PM
Quote
Love gives unselfishly rather than taking.
this is the strongest message in the bible and last sundays' homily was about this....Jesus after he was ressurected from the dead admonished his desciples to "Love one another as I have loved You"......
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 15, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Eros, philia, agape, storge.
Post by: barrister on May 15, 2012 at 06:12 PM
Ang alam ko nga, there are different hebrew words for love. Each is used differently pero sa english, love lang ang ginamit na translation.
Eros, philia, agape, storge.
You mean Greek, not Hebrew.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 15, 2012 at 06:22 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 15, 2012 at 06:46 PM
Ang alam ko nga, there are different hebrew words for love. Each is used differently pero sa english, love lang ang ginamit na translation.
Eros, philia, agape, storge.
You mean Greek, not Hebrew.
Oo nga pala. I stand corrected. Thank you very much. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros_(concept)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge
Post by: Frankthetank on May 15, 2012 at 08:08 PM
very interesting thread, I'm learning a lot from your healthy discussion.
How can I bookmark this thread?
Thank you.
Post by: Mr.T.one on May 15, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Hi guys, newbie here at pdvd..
very interesting thread, I'm learning a lot from your healthy discussion.
How can I bookmark this thread?
Thank you.
'right click' then 'bookmark this page'
Post by: sharkey360 on May 16, 2012 at 06:31 AM
By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN
President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible.
We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.
In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.
Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved.
That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night.
The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).
But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35).
How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return.
The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another."
The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.
Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.
Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.
In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity."
But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart.
“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”
Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.
In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.
As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.
The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion.
Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation.
Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/15/my-take-what-the-bible-really-says-about-homosexuality/?hpt=hp_c1
Post by: Pillow on May 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Quote
Filipino boxer and politician Manny Pacquiao, who Forbes named the #4 most influential athlete in the world this year, is speaking out against Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage, citing Biblical scripture that gays should be put to death.
Is he campaining for any candidates in the US elections? He should fit real well with them republicans.
Post by: RU9 on May 16, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Pacquiao makes anti-gay remark, barred from 'Extra'
MANILA, Philippines – Sarangani representative and Filipino boxing champion Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao was barred from an interview with entertainment show "Extra" at the Grove in Los Angeles after making an anti-gay remark.
Speaking with the National Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao quoted Leviticus 20:13, which says, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."
"They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Pacquiao made the comment after disagreeing with United States President Barack Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM
I wonder if he hangs out in sanitary napkins aisle of the supermarket and yell, "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!" to women and girls who are picking up a packet.
Post by: sharkey360 on May 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/sports/05/16/12/pacquiao-makes-anti-gay-remark-barred-extra
Pacquiao makes anti-gay remark, barred from 'Extra'
MANILA, Philippines – Sarangani representative and Filipino boxing champion Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao was barred from an interview with entertainment show "Extra" at the Grove in Los Angeles after making an anti-gay remark.
Speaking with the National Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao quoted Leviticus 20:13, which says, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."
"They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Pacquiao made the comment after disagreeing with United States President Barack Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage.
The 'death' line itself was violent, too violent to be channeled through the media.
It makes Pacman looking like a killer, or mentally violent.
While Pacman disagreed with Obama, other Filipinos praised Obama.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/258119/pinoyabroad/worldfeatures/obama-s-support-for-same-sex-marriage-draws-praise-tears-from-fil-am-lgbt-community
Post by: RU9 on May 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM
(http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/-/DropMannyFBShare.jpg)
Post by: indie boi on May 16, 2012 at 01:20 PM
"Love one another as I have loved You"......
Jesus already gave everyone the formula on how to live our lives, just follow this and you're set for life.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 16, 2012 at 01:43 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on May 16, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Why does Pacquiao care so much about gay marriage in America when the boxer himself cannot solve his problem with the BIR?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 16, 2012 at 03:02 PM
Post by: barrister on May 16, 2012 at 05:07 PM
Pag yung anak ayaw sumunod magulang, death penalty rin dapat:
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. (Deut. 21:18-21)
Ayaw sumunod sa pari, death penalty; ayaw sumunod sa judge, death penalty:
12 Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. (Deut. 17:12)
On the other hand, divorce is allowed in the Old and New Testaments, pero ayaw ni Manny sa divorce. Isa rin palang mahilig magmarunong sa bibliya ito e... :D
Post by: JT on May 16, 2012 at 09:00 PM
JT, I get the impression that you really don't believe that two people of the same gender can LOVE that's comparable to the way two people of opposite genders can love. You pretty much surmise that homosexuality is purely based on lust and hedonism.
If you can tell me what has lead into such relationship and where it is leading to ... then I can tell you so that you dont have to assume or just get an impression.
Post by: barrister on May 16, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Sir hotrod links articles saying that the Manny Paquiao quote is "fabricated":
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141517.msg1651603.html#msg1651603
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 16, 2012 at 10:30 PM
If you can tell me what has lead into such relationship and where it is leading to ... then I can tell you so that you dont have to assume or just get an impression.
What are you talking about exactly? LOVE. LOVE. LOVE. Love and companionship. Children? Some gay couples adopt kids, some even have their own (through the help of surrogates) and they raise their families just like any other families.
Many gays want the same thing heterosexual couples do: Except for the fact that who they love is of the same sex.
Post by: ATJr. on May 17, 2012 at 05:12 AM
Pacquiao is already embarrassing the Philippines. The news about him disagreeing with Obama on gay marriage is spreading a lot.
Why does Pacquiao care so much about gay marriage in America when the boxer himself cannot solve his problem with the BIR?
the LGBT's are a minority albeit noisy, why legislate to give them exclusive rights such as right to marry legally? isn't this class legislation which is expressedly prohibited in our constitution?
if they want to live together as married couples, let them do that, but for the state to legitimise that is asking too much imho....they will bear no natural children....walang uterus ang mga bakla.....walang bayag at penis ang mga tbirds....hindi sila magkaka-anak....the way nature intended....
Post by: barrister on May 17, 2012 at 06:51 AM
....they will bear no natural children....walang uterus ang mga bakla.....walang bayag at penis ang mga tbirds....hindi sila magkaka-anak....the way nature intended....
Hindi naman requirement na ang ikakasal ay magkakaroon ng anak. Wala rin namang fertility certificate na required sa heterosexual couples.
Kahit baog, kapon, tinanggalan ng matris, o menopausal ang heterosexual couple, hindi pa rin bawal ikasal, di ba?
Post by: tigkal on May 17, 2012 at 07:23 AM
Post by: ATJr. on May 17, 2012 at 08:09 AM
Quote
Hindi naman requirement na ang ikakasal ay magkakaroon ng anak.
true.....but that is a natural consequence of getting married, that is how nature intended it to be......if we go against laws of nature.....there are consequences....
Post by: ATJr. on May 17, 2012 at 08:10 AM
What is the true cause of being gay? Is it because of hormonal imbalance? mental illness? environment? I am asking because up to now, there is no answers yet because if you have a study and the gay community does not like the result, sorry ka nalang. Before we consider to let them marry, di ba we go first to the bottom of the cause, kasi baka isang injection lang hindi na gay..
a fluke of nature and no one knows for sure...
Post by: alistair on May 17, 2012 at 08:12 AM
What is the true cause of being gay? Is it because of hormonal imbalance? mental illness? environment? I am asking because up to now, there is no answers yet because if you have a study and the gay community does not like the result, sorry ka nalang. Before we consider to let them marry, di ba we go first to the bottom of the cause, kasi baka isang injection lang hindi na gay..We don't know for sure either whether chronic depression or bipolar disorder is caused by genetics, hormonal or chemical imbalance. Who knows—in the future, we might be able to take a pill to address those.
But we don't prevent depressed or bipolar people from getting married, do we?
Post by: tigkal on May 17, 2012 at 09:13 AM
We don't know for sure either whether chronic depression or bipolar disorder is caused by genetics, hormonal or chemical imbalance. Who knows—in the future, we might be able to take a pill to address those.
But we don't prevent depressed or bipolar people from getting married, do we?
We do not know for sure but we try to treat them di ba? We prevent them if they are bipolar gay here in the Phils. We do not prevent them from living together. If they want to have same benefits of married persons, i agree to that. but getting married, no.
Post by: alistair on May 17, 2012 at 09:37 AM
I mean, two HIV+ individuals can get married even if they're discouraged or choose not to have children—so that throws the whole reproductive purpose out the window.
Post by: BusyChild on May 17, 2012 at 09:40 AM
a fluke of nature and no one knows for sure...
Pagkabasa ko "freak" of nature.... hehe.. sorry... fluke of nature pala. ;D
Post by: indie boi on May 17, 2012 at 09:45 AM
Post by: tigkal on May 17, 2012 at 11:05 AM
You missed the point. If you treat homosexuality as an medical disorder—then why are you discriminating against them WRT marriage, when discrimination against other chronic or congenital disorders (HIV, cancer, polio, neurological and psychological) is downright illegal?
I mean, two HIV+ individuals can get married even if they're discouraged or choose not to have children—so that throws the whole reproductive purpose out the window.
It is not discriminating. It just means that they have a way to be cured with the medical disorder. If we let them get married, it is as if they have no disorder at all. Rights have limitations. We do not have absolute rights. As I said if they want to have same benefits, let them have them.
Post by: alistair on May 17, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Because the Bible doesn't mention HIV or cancer?
Post by: tigkal on May 17, 2012 at 11:32 AM
I am for equal rights and benefits but with limitations. I am always wondering why they insist to have same sex marriage if what they are after are for equal rights and benefits accorded to married couple.
Post by: indie boi on May 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Post by: alistair on May 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM
If it will be open to same sex marriage, we might as well open it up to all others who wish to marry their dog, horse, etc..There's that straw man again.
Can a dog or a horse commit sin?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on May 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Should the wall separating church and state be destroyed anywhere?
Post by: ATJr. on May 17, 2012 at 02:31 PM
Quote
Should the wall separating church and state be destroyed anywhere?
never...God forbid.....
Post by: sharkey360 on May 17, 2012 at 08:16 PM
Do you intend to do a spiritual journey?
Woman starves to death on spiritual journey trying to live on sunlight alone
A woman starved to death after embarking on a spiritual journey which involved giving up food and water and attempting to exist on nothing but sunlight.
The Swiss woman, who was in her fifties, apparently got the idea after watching the documentary film “In the Beginning, There Was Light” which features an Indian guru who claims to not have eaten anything in 70 years.
The Zurich newspaper Tages-Anzeiger reported Wednesday that the unnamed woman decided to follow the radical fast in 2010.
http://4yous.info/woman-starves-to-death-on-spiritual-journey-trying-to-live-on-sunlight-alone/
Post by: barrister on May 17, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Post by: sardaukar on May 18, 2012 at 05:39 AM
Post by: tigkal on May 24, 2012 at 06:51 AM
Dito na lang sa part na ito ako magco-concentrate sir, ang dami kasi ng tanong mo. And last na ito, kasi magagalit na ang mods dahil hindi naman ito religion thread.
Okay Dito ko na post baka magka warning tayo. pero evolution and creation touches on religion din kasi.
Ang sinabi ng serpent ay hindi lang "you will have knowledge between good and evil." Eto ang talagang sinabi niya:
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “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. 3:4-5)
The part about "you will not certainly die" is a blatant lie.
The part about "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" is a half-truth. Bakit?
Ganito yon:
Sina Adam and Eve, hindi alam ang good and evil. That means ang alam lang nila, basta sinabi ng Diyos, susunod nila, wala sa isip nila yung hindi sila susunod.
Parang two years old or below di ba?
Pero may free will sila sa isang bagay lang: kainin o hindi kainin ang forbidden fruit. Pag kinain nila yon, they will know good and evil, like God.
Yes, it is true that they will be like God in that aspect. Ang problema, hindi nilinaw ng serpent that they will not be like God in other aspects.
Sa palagay ko kaya naman gawin sa atin to be like God, kaso hindi binigay sa atin. kung pinakain din sana sa tree of life e di same na tayo di ba?kaso pinalayas sila lest they will eat the tree of life. yun lang naman ang difference between being a god.
They will just know the difference between good and evil, yes. But they will not become all-wise, all-powerful immortal spirits. In fact, namatay pa nga sila. Naloko sila ng serpent.
That's why it's a half-truth.
If nakain sana ang fruit sa tree of life whole na sana ang truth. But the serpent mismo ayaw tayo bigyan nun. Binigay lang just enough knowledge in order for us to survive on our own. kung baga hindi na tayo two years old, we can fend for ourselves without depending on god.
=======================
Post ka na lang sa religion thread, sir. Magandang topic yan.
Yung sagot na Adam and Eve died a spiritual death, sagot ng tamad yon. Hindi kasi maisip kung bakit hindi namatay agad sina Adan at Eba, ayaw nang pag-aralan. ;)
In summary, I can not imagine man without clothes and acting like a two year old(does not know about good and evil) today.
Post by: sharkey360 on May 24, 2012 at 06:54 AM
Cardinal Timothy Dolan has made it very clear that he doesn’t like President Obama’s contraception mandate. And apparently, he and the Catholic Church are prepared to let poor people starve to death if President Obama doesn’t give in to their demands.
In an appearance on Martin Bashir on MSNBC on Tuesday, Dolan said that the Church would abandon Jesus’ effort to help the sick and feed the poor in protest of the contraception mandate that only applies to insurance companies and not the Church itself.
“If these mandates kick in, we’re going to find ourselves faced with a terribly difficult decision as to whether or not we can continue to operate,” Dolan said. “As part of our religion — it’s part of our faith that we feed the hungry, that we educate the kids, that we take care of the sick. We’d have to give it up, because we’re unable to fit the description and the definition of a church given by — guess who — the federal government.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/23/cardinal/
Post by: tigkal on May 24, 2012 at 07:07 AM
OT. pero napa review ako dito ah!
So why sinabi na yung tree of knowledge will make them die?
The 'die' here has something to do with the spiritual (relationship) condition of Adam & Eve with God. It is not really the eating that made them 'die'. It is the DISOBEDIENCE - a blatant disregard of God. Prior, the couple do not know what sin is. After, they knew they disobeyed! The physical death is just part & parcel of the physical impact of the loss of their 'relational' (spiritual) status before God. [Di ko papatulan dito yung masipag :D ]
Sana sinabi nya agad na ganun. kasi parang afterthought nalang kasi yun. dahil nga hindi agad namatay sila, kaya ganun nalang ang sinabi. Ikaw ba naman hindi mo alam between good and evil, pag sinabi sa iyo na patay, e di yung instant patay talaga ang nasa isip mo di ba. try mo sa two year old kid.pag sinabi mo na wag nya gawin or mamatay siya, yung isip nya is pata agad.
what is the purpose of the tree of life if they are immortal in the first place?
Saka mo na problemahin yan, pag namayapa ka na!
I want to be enlightened sana bago mamayapa.
When the devil did say you will have knowledge between good and evil. di ba naging true yun?
Yup!
And that means intelligence right?
Bakit mas alam ng devil ano yung instant result?
kasi nangyari na sa kanya yon eh! he was (in eternity future - will be) discharge from the presence of God!
Akala ko same sila ni god before, kaso nag away away lang sila.
Hindi kaya yung tinutukoy na devil was the real creator?
Nope!
Doctor symbol is the serpent in double helix configuration around a cross. devil in genesis also the serpent.double helix is the dna configuration. bakit kaya ganun ang symbol ng medical profession?
Kasi yung paging mortal ng tao was a choice of god, kung baga consequence lang yun sa action ng man.
Nope. It was man's act - a choice that emanated from the couple - they are free to choose then!
di ba hindi pa nakain yung fruit ng tree of life? so at that time may chance pa tayo maging immortal. but man chose knowledge between good and evil, not immortality. without knowing between good and evil, we will always be forever following god,s instruction without knwowing why we follow and will never know what was instructed to us is good or evil.
pero yung sa devil, yun talaga ang mangyari in an instant.
Actually, at that time, tapos na yung kay devil - he is dead meat already ;D - judgement have been made on him in eternity past (can not remember the passage when lucifer and his allies rebeled against God).
Yun kasi din ang problema. those who write history are the victors. kaya kawawa sa kwento ang losers. pero we never know kung sino ang mas tama sa kanilang dalawa in reality. we only base what is written by the victors.
When science reaches its full potential, di ba meron na rin tayo chance to live forever? It is all about chemistry lang naman yan..
The evolution did not state this. The Bible did not state this either.
Evolution did state that. That is why there is evolution, a change in the dna structure occured kaya may changes. and dna is all about chemistry din di ba. In time we can unlock the code. There is a reason why we grow old. hindi pa lang natin na decode ang code. There are instances na sobra bilis pag tanda ng isang tao. So meron din instance na sobra bagal tanda ng tao.
Post by: sardaukar on May 24, 2012 at 08:16 AM
If just for that reason we can never be the same as God.
Post by: tigkal on May 24, 2012 at 08:53 AM
One of the most basic definitions of God is "The uncaused cause."
If just for that reason we can never be the same as God.
Hmm.. God as defined on the bible? Or God as our creator? If God as defined in the bible, I agree. No one can be like that being for sure.
But God as the creator with immortal life, we are almost there, but held back by imposing restrictions on research on this matter. And that is all what man wants naman.
Post by: barrister on May 24, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Sa palagay ko kaya naman gawin sa atin to be like God, kaso hindi binigay sa atin. kung pinakain din sana sa tree of life e di same na tayo di ba?kaso pinalayas sila lest they will eat the tree of life. yun lang naman ang difference between being a god.
No, hindi pa rin ganon yon.
Kahit kumain sila sa tree of life, hindi pa rin sila katulad ng Diyos Ama. Unang-una, hindi sila magiging spirit, may physical bodies pa rin sila.
If nakain sana ang fruit sa tree of life whole na sana ang truth. But the serpent mismo ayaw tayo bigyan nun. Binigay lang just enough knowledge in order for us to survive on our own. kung baga hindi na tayo two years old, we can fend for ourselves without depending on god.
Hindi pa rin ganon.
Adam and Eve were allowed to eat any fruit, except the forbidden fruit. Therefore, we can assume that before the fall, they were also eating from the tree of life.
Ang sabi ng Diyos tungkol sa forbidden fruit, "when you eat from it you will certainly die." Hindi sinabing as soon as you eat, you will immediately die; ang sabi lang, you will certainly die. This means death will be in the future, but will be certain. At totoo nga ang sabi ng Diyos --- as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit, they became subject to aging and death, and eventually died.
How about the tree of life?
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Gen. 3:22)
God did not say they became like God in all aspects. He simply said said they became "like one of us, knowing good and evil." So you see, they did not become like God as an all-powerful, all-wise, immortal spirit. They became like God only in the aspect of knowing the difference between good and evil, nothing more. But they still had physical bodies, and this time, their bodies are now subject to aging, disease and death.
Yes, they would have lived forever had they been allowed to eat from the tree of life, but they would still have been subject to aging, disease, etc., because they had already eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Kawawa naman sila kung ganon. Na-stroke na, may Alzheimer's at Parkinson's pa, may rayuma pa, pero hindi mamatay-matay.
Dahil sa pagmamahal ng Diyos, mas ginusto Niya na mamatay sina Adan at Eba eventually, kaysa magkaroon lang sila ng walang katapusang physical suffering.
Ngayon, pag nakarinig ka ng malalim sa sagot, masasabi mo na yung common answer na sina Adam and Eve daw "died a spiritual death" ay talaga namang sagot ng tamad... ;)
Post by: dpogs on May 24, 2012 at 02:33 PM
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. 3:19
die in Gen. 2:17 is spiritual death...
ipinataw ang physical death kasama ang paglabor ng panganganak ng babae later sa Gen. 3:19
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in union with the Messiah Jesus our Lord." Rom. 6:23
Post by: barrister on May 24, 2012 at 03:12 PM
The first death refers to what we ordinarily mean: physical death. The second death refers to death in the lake of fire.
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death. (Rev. 2:11)
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:6)
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. (Rev. 20:14)
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars —they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. (Rev. 21:8 )
die in Gen. 2:17 is spiritual death...
Gen. 2:17 refers to the 1st death. Adam and Eve experienced the 1st death. They have not yet experienced the 2nd death. In fact, nobody has experienced the 2nd death, since that is still a future event.
Therefore, it is unbiblical to say that Adam and Eve were immediately punished with the 2nd death.
I don't use the term "spiritual death," since avoiding the use of terms I don't find in the bible is an important discipline in studying scripture. Mga Amerikanong pastor ang mahilig gumamit ng terminong yon.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in union with the Messiah Jesus our Lord." Rom. 6:23
Rom. 6:23 refers to the 2nd death.
Post by: dpogs on May 24, 2012 at 03:18 PM
then... what kind of death did Adam passed to all men? (ref: Romans 5:12; I Cor. 15:22)
Post by: barrister on May 24, 2012 at 05:14 PM
hmm...
then... what kind of death did Adam passed to all men? (ref: Romans 5:12; I Cor. 15:22)
Adam passed on the 1st death. Adam did not pass on the 2nd death.
=============================
You cited Rom. 5:12 ---
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —
Just continue up to verse 17:
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Adam sinned, Adam died. Death entered the world through Adam's sin. What kind of death? The 1st death, which is the death of the physical body.
Sa katunayan, "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command." Kahit pala hindi ka magkasala, mamamatay ka rin. Alangan namang hindi ka na nga nagkasala, 2nd death ka pa rin. E di 1st death nga yon, the physical death of all people.
Jesus Christ came to give us the gift of life. Follow Him, and you get eternal life even after your 1st death. Otherwise, after your 1st death, you get the 2nd death in the lake of fire.
=============================
You also cited I Cor. 15:22 ---
22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
In Adam, all die. What kind of death? The 1st death, which is the death of the physical body.
All of those who are in Christ will be made alive. You have to die the 1st death (physical) because of Adam's sin. But because of Christ, you will be made alive and will not die the 2nd death.
Those who are not in Christ will also resurrect. However, they will resurrect not to get eternal life, but to die the 2nd death in the lake of fire.
Therefore, there will be 2 resurrections and 2 deaths. 1st resurrection for the saved; 2nd resurrection for the damned. 1st death for all of us; 2nd death for the damned in the lake of fire.
Thus, Revelation says:
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6)
The righteous will resurrect in the 1st ressurrection and reign with Christ for 1000 years. After the 1000 years, the unrighteous will resurrect in the 2nd resurrection so that they can be subjected to the 2nd death:
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:11-15)
=============================
So, paanong napasa ni Adam yung 2nd death kung wala pa ngang 2nd death noong panahon niya?
It's not that hard to understand. Pag wala pa rin, e mahirap nga talagang gisingin ang gising ;).
Post by: dpogs on May 24, 2012 at 07:44 PM
Post by: barrister on May 24, 2012 at 08:26 PM
If physical death been passed from Adam to all mankind because of his sin... hindi sana namatay si Jesus Christ (physically) since hindi siya nagkasala.
I spend time and effort composing my posts. Please read them carefully:
Sa katunayan, "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command." Kahit pala hindi ka magkasala, mamamatay ka rin.
It is only the physical death that passed to all men, not the sin itself. Kaya nga namatay si Hesus, kasi physical death nga ang nakuha ng human body kay Adam.
In the bible, your sin is your own. You do not inherit the sin of your ancestor:
20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. (Ezekiel 18:20)
"Original sin" is a Catholic concept, but there is no such thing in the bible.
The Eastern Orthodox Church calls it the "ancestral sin." Various Protestant denominations also believe in original sin, such as the Calvinists, the Methodists, the Lutherans ("Adamic guilt"), and the Anglicans. Those beliefs are all unbibilical.
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 24, 2012 at 10:35 PM
OT. pero napa review ako dito ah!
So why sinabi na yung tree of knowledge will make them die?
Sana sinabi nya agad na ganun. kasi parang afterthought nalang kasi yun. dahil nga hindi agad namatay sila, kaya ganun nalang ang sinabi. Ikaw ba naman hindi mo alam between good and evil, pag sinabi sa iyo na patay, e di yung instant patay talaga ang nasa isip mo di ba. try mo sa two year old kid.pag sinabi mo na wag nya gawin or mamatay siya, yung isip nya is pata agad.
what is the purpose of the tree of life if they are immortal in the first place?
Saka mo na problemahin yan, pag namayapa ka na!
I want to be enlightened sana bago mamayapa.
When the devil did say you will have knowledge between good and evil. di ba naging true yun?
Yup!
And that means intelligence right?
Bakit mas alam ng devil ano yung instant result?
kasi nangyari na sa kanya yon eh! he was (in eternity future - will be) discharge from the presence of God!
Akala ko same sila ni god before, kaso nag away away lang sila.
Hindi kaya yung tinutukoy na devil was the real creator?
Nope!
Doctor symbol is the serpent in double helix configuration around a cross. devil in genesis also the serpent.double helix is the dna configuration. bakit kaya ganun ang symbol ng medical profession?
Kasi yung paging mortal ng tao was a choice of god, kung baga consequence lang yun sa action ng man.
Nope. It was man's act - a choice that emanated from the couple - they are free to choose then!
di ba hindi pa nakain yung fruit ng tree of life? so at that time may chance pa tayo maging immortal. but man chose knowledge between good and evil, not immortality. without knowing between good and evil, we will always be forever following god,s instruction without knwowing why we follow and will never know what was instructed to us is good or evil.
pero yung sa devil, yun talaga ang mangyari in an instant.
Actually, at that time, tapos na yung kay devil - he is dead meat already Grin - judgement have been made on him in eternity past (can not remember the passage when lucifer and his allies rebeled against God).
Yun kasi din ang problema. those who write history are the victors. kaya kawawa sa kwento ang losers. pero we never know kung sino ang mas tama sa kanilang dalawa in reality. we only base what is written by the victors.
When science reaches its full potential, di ba meron na rin tayo chance to live forever? It is all about chemistry lang naman yan..
The evolution did not state this. The Bible did not state this either.
Evolution did state that. That is why there is evolution, a change in the dna structure occured kaya may changes. and dna is all about chemistry din di ba. In time we can unlock the code. There is a reason why we grow old. hindi pa lang natin na decode ang code. There are instances na sobra bilis pag tanda ng isang tao. So meron din instance na sobra bagal tanda ng tao.
So why sinabi na yung tree of knowledge will make them die?
Sana sinabi nya agad na ganun. kasi parang afterthought nalang kasi yun. dahil nga hindi agad namatay sila, kaya ganun nalang ang sinabi. Ikaw ba naman hindi mo alam between good and evil, pag sinabi sa iyo na patay, e di yung instant patay talaga ang nasa isip mo di ba. try mo sa two year old kid.pag sinabi mo na wag nya gawin or mamatay siya, yung isip nya is pata agad.
--> will not blame man if he wants to interpret it his way. In fact, even the disciples did the same thing in some of Christ's words - he is the king, messiah, the kingdom, ressurection, only to know (like you said 'afterthought') what he really meant afterwards.
what is the purpose of the tree of life if they are immortal in the first place?
I want to be enlightened sana bago mamayapa.
--> You are trying to approach the mind of God, which is normal, but which is not possible while you are mortal. Perfection of knowledge is way ahead pa - when you enter eternity. For if the evolution and creation can not be fathomed by human, how much more those reason for the trees.
When the devil did say you will have knowledge between good and evil. di ba naging true yun?
And that means intelligence right?
--> Well it depends where you are coming from. If your mom tells you (as a toddler in your innocence) to stop the things she do not want you to be doing, and you dont stop, I can not think how it can be construed intelligence. Although you will know what you did is not right before your mother when she start spanking you!
Bakit mas alam ng devil ano yung instant result?
Akala ko same sila ni god before, kaso nag away away lang sila.
--> Of course not. Angels are not in the same level of God!
Doctor symbol is the serpent in double helix configuration around a cross. devil in genesis also the serpent.double helix is the dna configuration. bakit kaya ganun ang symbol ng medical profession?
--> Don't know, but Christ admonished His believers to be wise as serpents!
di ba hindi pa nakain yung fruit ng tree of life? so at that time may chance pa tayo maging immortal. but man chose knowledge between good and evil, not immortality. without knowing between good and evil, we will always be forever following god,s instruction without knwowing why we follow and will never know what was instructed to us is good or evil.
--> the pronouncement of God for man to die (physically) is the start of man's mortality. Thus, before eating, there is no such death to their body, implying immortality. Again, God wanted us to follow for good reasons - and GOD can never instruct you evil, or else he will go against his own attributes. OBEDIENCE is absolute for God. Abraham had to sacrifice Isaac (obedience) because God calls for it. Is this bad command? Abraham knew better because of His trust in God - God will provide the sacrifice, or God can raise Isaac again from death (whatever). Obedience is better than sacrifice!
Yun kasi din ang problema. those who write history are the victors. kaya kawawa sa kwento ang losers. pero we never know kung sino ang mas tama sa kanilang dalawa in reality. we only base what is written by the victors.
--> Oh well, its a war! And only the winner has the right to be obeyed! Who's right or wrong? what will be your standard to measure? Without the 10 commandments, there will be no sin. Without God's prohibition in the garden, there will be no disobedience. But since God is the victor, then non-compliance is wrong, compliance is right. This is also man's concept!
Evolution did state that. That is why there is evolution, a change in the dna structure occured kaya may changes. and dna is all about chemistry din di ba. In time we can unlock the code. There is a reason why we grow old. hindi pa lang natin na decode ang code. There are instances na sobra bilis pag tanda ng isang tao. So meron din instance na sobra bagal tanda ng tao.
--> Well, make no mistake about it, evolution is just a theory. Nobody have proven that. If evolution stated that, that's perfectly normal - they are a bunch that have mix creativity and fantasy, hijacked science in proving their past debunked altered proofs. Those pesky global warming scientists! They need more money to find more proofs - and the law to make the flow of money legal.
PS. Alternate sa nagsipag sipagang sumagot :D
The 'spiritual death' of Adam & Eve is immediate. As such, during the interrogation, God already prescribed a Savior for them. As said, the physical death is partly a consequence of the pronouncement - and is to happen when they grow old. This has been contrasted by Paul in Romans: As the first Adam brought us death, so the second Adam (Christ) brought us life. As you can see, death in 1st Adam is not the physical death, for how life can be physical in the 2nd Adam if we are actually alive?
Romans 5:
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, ---
15 --- For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God --- which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance --- of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Anyway, I can also make pronouncement on one's religion the way he interprets his passage - but what the heck!
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 24, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Quote
I spend time and effort composing my posts. Please read them carefully:
It is only the physical death that passed to all men, not the sin itself. Kaya nga namatay si Hesus, kasi physical death nga ang nakuha ng human body kay Adam.
In the bible, your sin is your own. You do not inherit the sin of your ancestor:
20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. (Ezekiel 18:20)
"Original sin" is a Catholic concept, but there is no such thing in the bible.
The Eastern Orthodox Church calls it the "ancestral sin." Various Protestant denominations also believe in original sin, such as the Calvinists, the Methodists, the Lutherans ("Adamic guilt"), and the Anglicans. Those beliefs are all unbibilical.
It is just semantics!
The second death is only possible when there is judgment already passed. So whether it is present or future, does not matter (this is only human time consideration vs Gods eternity).
The death of Adam is his condemnation as a result of his disobedience. And this judgment of condemnation is the pronouncement of (2nd) death itself - time is immaterial before God, though useful for human being.
Thus, all human being, upon birth, carries with him the judgment of God (the 2nd death) - the condemnation due to sin accorded to Adam's actuation.
Only those who placed their faith in Christ as their Savior & Lord will be spared from the judgment of 2nd death. All men will go the 1st death - though it is part of the punishment of Adam and passed on to men, it is in no way the just recompense for Adam's disobedience. So the death that God refer to in His warning to Adam is not the shallow (physical) death - which made up the judgment of God. No amount of human death can salvage man in his disobedience to God.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
= = =
The original sin is a vague idea actually. It is the judgment of condemnation that is passed to human.
Christ did not inherit a body of condemnation - because He was not from the seed of 'human' (Adam) technically. His body is of different league (did not possess the condemnation), so His physical death is not the punishment passed on from Adam (hindi niya nakuha kay Adam yun), it is His own choosing (and for a purpose). In fact, He has all the choice to do otherwise. But since the 1st Adam screw it, the 2nd Adam must be a perfect one to fulfill a designated plan.
Yes, you do not inherit the sin of your ancestor - BUT you inherit the condemnation of your ancestor.
Post by: barrister on May 25, 2012 at 09:31 AM
The original sin is a vague idea actually. It is the judgment of condemnation that is passed to human.
The original sin is a clear idea. But it's a wrong idea.
The 1st death passed to all humans, but the 2nd death did not.
This means that no matter what you do, you will surely get the 1st death, because you inherited it. But it is only if you are unrighteous that you will get the 2nd death, because you did not inherit it.
==================================
Christ did not inherit a body of condemnation - because He was not from the seed of 'human' (Adam) technically. His body is of different league (did not possess the condemnation), so His physical death is not the punishment passed on from Adam (hindi niya nakuha kay Adam yun), it is His own choosing (and for a purpose). In fact, He has all the choice to do otherwise. But since the 1st Adam screw it, the 2nd Adam must be a perfect one to fulfill a designated plan.
Christ incarnated into a mortal body. That mortal body is the same as ours, one that is condemned to die the 1st death.
He chose to enter a mortal body because His mission is to die for our sins. If He entered a special body that is immortal, then He couldn't die. How then could He have fulfilled His mission of dying? E di sana kahit pinako Siya sa krus, hindi rin kayang patayin, kung immortal body ang kinuha Niya.
That is why Philippians 2:5-8 says:
"...as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!"
The verse doesn't say Jesus had a special, immortal body. It says He took the form of a man, making Himself a servant who is nothing, just like us. He chose to take a mortal body so that He can die on the cross.
It's true that Jesus Christ is without sin. But it is also true that He voluntarily incarnated into a body that is mortal, condemned to die the 1st death:
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:21)
In other words, He who is without sin incarnated into a body that was condemned to the 1st death (mortality), so that He can die on the cross for our salvation.
I don't see how it can be any clearer.
=================================
Yes, you do not inherit the sin of your ancestor - BUT you inherit the condemnation of your ancestor.
That's what I've been saying. You do not inherit Adam's sin. You only inherit the 1st death, which was the condemnation of our ancestor Adam in the Old Testament.
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM
The original sin is a clear idea. But it's a wrong idea.
The 1st death passed to all humans, but the 2nd death did not.
This means that no matter what you do, you will surely get the 1st death, because you inherited it. But it is only if you are unrighteous that you will get the 2nd death, because you did not inherit it.
==================================
Christ incarnated into a mortal body. That mortal body is the same as ours, one that is condemned to die the 1st death.
He chose to enter a mortal body because His mission is to die for our sins. If He entered a special body that is immortal, then He couldn't die. How then could He have fulfilled His mission of dying? E di sana kahit pinako Siya sa krus, hindi rin kayang patayin, kung immortal body ang kinuha Niya.
That is why Philippians 2:5-8 says:
"...as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!"
The verse doesn't say Jesus had a special, immortal body. It says He took the form of a man, making Himself a servant who is nothing, just like us. He chose to take a mortal body so that He can die on the cross.
It's true that Jesus Christ is without sin. But it is also true that He voluntarily incarnated into a body that is mortal, condemned to die the 1st death:
"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Cor. 5:21)
In other words, He who is without sin incarnated into a body that was condemned to the 1st death (mortality), so that He can die on the cross for our salvation.
I don't see how it can be any clearer.
=================================
That's what I've been saying. You do not inherit Adam's sin. You only inherit the 1st death, which was the condemnation of our ancestor Adam in the Old Testament.
The original sin is a clear idea. But it's a wrong idea.
--> RC used "original sin" to obfuscate that it is the "judgment to condemnation" which we inherited! However, JUDGMENT is used in Fundamental Christianity as synonymous to 2nd death. Though you are not at it yet, you are already tagged for the 2nd death (human time domain)! Of course, something is going on for you to be untagged (human reasoning) - but in eternity domain, these are all known already (the end of each one). Thus, there is possibility, while a human is alive, that he can be untagged (salvaged) out of the 2nd death reality, brought about by the JUDGMENT into CONDEMNATION!
This means that no matter what you do, you will surely get the 1st death, because you inherited it. But it is only if you are unrighteous that you will get the 2nd death, because you did not inherit it.
--> if you just refer to the actual consummation of the 2nd death, you are correct. However, until the JUDGMENT of CONDEMNATION is removed from you, the 2nd DEATH is still part of your destiny. Of course, we are referring within our time domain!
Christ incarnated into a mortal body. That mortal body is the same as ours, one that is condemned to die the 1st death.
--> Christ body is not the same as our body which inherited the JUDGMENT into CONDEMNATION. His seed is not from human (divine conception) - it is a clean body not blemished by Adam's sin of disobedience. The CONDEMNATION is not unto the 1st DEATH but UNTO JUDGMENT (2nd DEATH - the eternal separation from the presence of the Almighty). 1st DEATH is just part of this whole JUDGMENT package. - But it is the same body as ours in the sense that it is also subjected to the same temptation and weakness as we are, but can not sin - and will not! HIS body is the perfect (clean and pure) sacrifice!
IT only became subjected to JUDGMENT and CONDEMNATION (and to die the 1st DEATH is) when He brought upon Himself (by His own Choice - though He may opt not to) the JUDGMENT of CONDEMNATION of other human beings (substitutory death) - and this is the only time that his body has to suffer 1st DEATH (ON THE CROSS) - and that time all the heavens covers itself from the sight of HIM who bore all the JUDGMENT of GOD upon Himself!
He chose to enter a mortal body because His mission is to die for our sins. If He entered a special body that is immortal, then He couldn't die. How then could He have fulfilled His mission of dying? E di sana kahit pinako Siya sa krus, hindi rin kayang patayin, kung immortal body ang kinuha Niya.
That is why Philippians 2:5-8 says:
"...as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!"
He did not enter an immortal body - but in the same way, he did not enter a body that is traceable to Adam! His being is of different league. Philippians is clear: He just took human likeness (not the very essence of human - that is subject to JUDGMENT unto CONDEMNATION - he is now presented as human, but FREE from DEFECTS inherited from ADAM! He did not left His deity (as GOD Himself) when He took the form of a man - He exercised both (functions of God, and functions of man) while in the human likeness.
In other words, He who is without sin incarnated into a body that was condemned to the 1st death (mortality), so that He can die on the cross for our salvation. --- I don't see how it can be any clearer.
--> You are mistaken! Christ's body is not subject to CONDEMNATION unto JUDGMENT when He was born. He is not part of Adam' flesh! His body is full of Holiness (being a constant deity/God while at the same time perfectly human - but not from Adam).
When he consummated the substitutory death, that's the ONLY time He became subject to JUDGMENT unto CONDEMNATION - meaning that instead of man getting the punishment of 2nd death, He replaced it with His own death (DEATH - even if it is 1st DEATH - of a PERFECT SACRIFICE - the only SACRIFICE acceptable before GOD, one that can APPEASE the wrath of GOD against man's sin!). This sacrifice (1st DEATH of a PERFECT SACRIFICE) is greater than the 2nd death JUDGMENT that GOD exact against all sinners.
That's what I've been saying. You do not inherit Adam's sin. You only inherit the 1st death, which was the condemnation of our ancestor Adam in the Old Testament.
--> Again, what was inherited was not 1st DEATH - but CONDEMNATION. This CONDEMNATION is a whole package that includes not only the 1st DEATH (++) but also the 2nd DEATH (eternal separation from God's presence). Your 1st DEATH, the human nature, the 2nd DEATH are all passed. Part of what was passed is not Adam's sin - but the propensity of ADAM's flesh to sin that is - the state of rebellious human nature!
Post by: barrister on May 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Though you are not at it yet, you are already tagged for the 2nd death (human time domain)! Of course, something is going on for you to be untagged (human reasoning) - but in eternity domain, these are all known already (the end of each one). Thus, there is possibility, while a human is alive, that he can be untagged (salvaged) out of the 2nd death reality, brought about by the JUDGMENT into CONDEMNATION!
We are destined for the 1st death. We are not destined for the 2nd death.
You can't cite a bible verse that will prove otherwise.
--> if you just refer to the actual consummation of the 2nd death, you are correct. However, until the JUDGMENT of CONDEMNATION is removed from you, the 2nd DEATH is still part of your destiny. Of course, we are referring within our time domain!
We are destined for the 1st death. We are not destined for the 2nd death.
You can't cite a bible verse that will prove otherwise.
--> Christ body is not the same as our body which inherited the JUDGMENT into CONDEMNATION. His seed is not from human (divine conception) - it is a clean body not blemished by Adam's sin of disobedience.
The human body of Jesus is the same as our body.
You can't cite a bible verse that will prove otherwise.
He did not enter an immortal body - but in the same way, he did not enter a body that is traceable to Adam! His being is of different league. Philippians is clear: He just took human likeness (not the very essence of human - that is subject to JUDGMENT unto CONDEMNATION - he is now presented as human, but FREE from DEFECTS inherited from ADAM! He did not left His deity (as GOD Himself) when He took the form of a man - He exercised both (functions of God, and functions of man) while in the human likeness.
"... but FREE from DEFECTS inherited from ADAM" --- wala namang nakasulat na ganon sa Philippians 2:5-8.
Yes, Christ took the external form of a man. But inside, He is God.
Yes, that's different from us. We also have a human form externally. But inside, we are not God.
Note that the difference is internal. But externally, we have the same human body as Jesus, also subject to the 1st death.
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 26, 2012 at 01:16 AM
We are destined for the 1st death. We are not destined for the 2nd death.
You can't cite a bible verse that will prove otherwise.
You don't have a verse as well to say that what Adam brought is only your destiny for 1st DEATH;
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; - says CONDEMNATION! You just simplify that CONDEMNATION to just 1st DEATH!
We are destined for the 1st death. We are not destined for the 2nd death.
You can't cite a bible verse that will prove otherwise.
You don't have a verse as well to say that what Adam brought is only your destiny for 1st DEATH;
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; - says CONDEMNATION! You just simplify that CONDEMNATION to just 1st DEATH!
I do not need to prove destiny to 1st DEATH! Your CONDEMNATION includes 1st DEATH - but not the all of it!
The human body of Jesus is the same as our body.
You can't cite a bible verse that will prove otherwise.
"... but FREE from DEFECTS inherited from ADAM" --- wala namang nakasulat na ganon sa Philippians 2:5-8.
Yes, Christ took the external form of a man. But inside, He is God.
Yes, that's different from us. We also have a human form externally. But inside, we are not God.
Note that the difference is internal. But externally, we have the same human body as Jesus, also subject to the 1st death.
Philippians is clear - LIKENESS! FORM! Even if it is not written, the passage should jibe with other passages: JESUS is not part of Adam's flesh (divine)! The sacrificial lambs of the OT is a representation of Jesus' sacrifice "FREE from DEFECTS". His death (1st DEATH) is not the result of God's JUDGMENT unto CONDEMNATION brought about by Adam's sin) - that is a subsitutory one! Our humanity is traced to Adam - Jesus humanity is not!
He is the same as us outwardly - but his physical essence is very much different, in that it was not contaminated by Adam's CONDEMNATION unto JUDGMENT!
So externally - we are alike, LOOKED the same - but the origin of our flesh is different from Jesus'! Our body was tagged for CONDEMNATION even upon birth, His body is not! Because His body originated from above, while our body originated from Adam!
Post by: barrister on May 26, 2012 at 09:35 AM
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; - says CONDEMNATION! You just simplify that CONDEMNATION to just 1st DEATH!
I did not simplify. I clarified.
As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation. What was the condemnation? Death. What kind of death? The 1st death. That is why all men are condemned to die the 1st death. Not all men are condemned to die the 2nd death, because only the unrighteous will die the 2nd death.
You don't have a verse as well to say that what Adam brought is only your destiny for 1st DEATH;
All related verses convey that message.
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned — ...14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. (Rom. 5:12; 14)
This is about physical death.
Verse 12 says death through Adam. Verse 14 says death reigned from Adam to Moses. But Moses will not die the 2nd death, because he was righteous. Therefore, what death reigned over Moses and reigns over all of us? The 1st death.
Verse 14 says death reigned "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command." This clearly refers to the 1st death, since all of us will die the 1st death even if we do not sin. It cannot refer to the 2nd death, because the 2nd death does not reign over the righteous.
Now, where is your verse?
Philippians is clear - LIKENESS! FORM! Even if it is not written, the passage should jibe with other passages: JESUS is not part of Adam's flesh (divine)! The sacrificial lambs of the OT is a representation of Jesus' sacrifice "FREE from DEFECTS". His death (1st DEATH) is not the result of God's JUDGMENT unto CONDEMNATION brought about by Adam's sin) - that is a subsitutory one!
In likeness and in form means that Jesus has the same human body as we do, but is still different from us. Because in us is the spirit of man, not the fullness of Godhead.
A sacrificial lamb free from defect simply means hindi pilay, hindi bulag, walang disease, walang spots, etc., but they were not special lambs from heaven. They were ordinary mortal lambs. This is just a symbol that represents the absence of sin in the coming Messiah, who will be the new sacrificial lamb of God.
Our humanity is traced to Adam - Jesus humanity is not!
Jesus' humanity is traced to Adam.
16...Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. (Mat. 1:16)
"...which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38)
Luke's purpose in showing the genealogy of Jesus and tracing it to Adam is to show that Jesus did not have a special divine body that came from heaven, but an ordinary human body that was descended from other humans. Just in case some people entertain other notions.
Ang problema, sinulat na nga, wala pa rin.
Post by: sharkey360 on May 26, 2012 at 02:10 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/536033_347165305351168_1632210973_n.jpg)
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 26, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 26, 2012 at 10:59 PM
I did not simplify. I clarified.
As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation. What was the condemnation? Death. What kind of death? The 1st death. That is why all men are condemned to die the 1st death. Not all men are condemned to die the 2nd death, because only the unrighteous will die the 2nd death.
--> Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
All are under condemnation! if you don’t think condemnation referred to the 2nd death, I do not know why do you need Christ for? Since you will still die (the 1st death – barrister condemnation version) anyway!
Condemnation (2nd death being the ultimate) is inherent in every man – inherited by humans from the being contaminated by Adam.
I know JW group did not believe this part. To them, man’s (1st) death is the end of it all.
I did not simplify. I clarified.
As by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation. What was the condemnation? Death. What kind of death? The 1st death. That is why all men are condemned to die the 1st death. Not all men are condemned to die the 2nd death, because only the unrighteous will die the 2nd death.
All related verses convey that message.
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned — ...14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. (Rom. 5:12; 14)
This is about physical death.
Verse 12 says death through Adam. Verse 14 says death reigned from Adam to Moses. But Moses will not die the 2nd death, because he was righteous. Therefore, what death reigned over Moses and reigns over all of us? The 1st death.
Verse 14 says death reigned "even over those who did not sin by breaking a command." This clearly refers to the 1st death, since all of us will die the 1st death even if we do not sin. It cannot refer to the 2nd death, because the 2nd death does not reign over the righteous.
Now, where is your verse?
Again, the 1st death is part of the total package of CONDEMNATION of God – but is not the all of it (which you are fond of insisting). Otherwise, What is the sense of Jesus dying to take away that condemnation if condemnation only refer to 1st death (See above Romans 5:18 and Romans 8:1)
And did you wonder Why Moses will not taste the 2nd death? Is it because he was righteous? Read Romans 8:1 again!
In likeness and in form means that Jesus has the same human body as we do, but is still different from us. Because in us is the spirit of man, not the fullness of Godhead.
A sacrificial lamb free from defect simply means hindi pilay, hindi bulag, walang disease, walang spots, etc., but they were not special lambs from heaven. They were ordinary mortal lambs. This is just a symbol that represents the absence of sin in the coming Messiah, who will be the new sacrificial lamb of God.
I will not engage you anymore in this topic – we have different religious perception. But I will offer the readers some perspective on this matter. Again, this is for the readers:
The following materials will tell you that Barrister position and my position seems to be debated upon long ago. See resources below (you may read the totality, but I extracted my take on the topic):
SOURCE 1: http://www.biblebanner.com/ga_art/emoore1.htm
“He took upon himself the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7)
The divine Word became flesh, but that flesh was not weak and liable to the same weaknesses and lusts that ordinary men develop (Heb. 4:15).
The full discourse is about refuting a teacher (Elmer Moore) equating Jesus humanity with that of man’s humanity (descendants of Adam).
SOURCE 2: http://www.ntslibrary.com/Christology%20The%20Doctrine%20of%20Jesus%20Christ.pdf
She conceived without human or divine fertilization when God the son entered her womb.
Jesus did not go through the process of sperm hitting the egg. Jesus was able to take whatever moment after egg-sperm become life, and was able, without sperm, to place a physical body in the womb of Mary—at the moment of conception. [Sorry evolutionists – this is not for you]
Yes, Joseph and Mary with their long genealogies and generations are begotten of men! But Jesus is begotten of God!
Then, enter Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and many other cults that would say, “Well, then how could He be the only begotten son of God?” (NOTE: I just higlighted - I did not say this portion!)
SOURCE 3: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1984-1_021.pdf
Jesus who is 'to come' or to 'make appearance', indicating that the one who came as man was pre•existent
'took flesh' to designate the incarnation
incarnation a matter of the Logos having assumed a human body
difference between 'became flesh' and 'became man' (John 1:14 – And the Word [God – Logos] became flesh.
There is no indication that God fertilized the egg of Mary through the work of either the Father or the Spirit.
humanity of Jesus was not derived from Mary; Mary was just an instrument used by God
The incarnation is a new creation, discontinuous with the old creation of humanity
Jesus 'was man, but not of human seed'
The Logos became a human being though he had no blood relationships with humanity
MY FINAL STATEMENT ON THIS SUBJECT:
Jesus’ took the form (likeness) of a man – but his vessel (body) is not the one coming from Adam (sperm & egg cell fertilization – a miracle / or a divine work of creation, from nothing!).
It is a body provided by no less than God Himself ; different from and is not contaminated by Adam’s humanity! Outwardly, it resembles human (likeness, forms, behavior in many physical aspects) but of different origin & constitution from Adam’s own!
It is a body under His full control – even 1st death. His death is not the result of the usual consequences of the CONDEMNATION of GOD (where humans can not make a choice to prevent such death). He can subject His body to no death if He decides to do it - in the same manner that he became flesh without fertilization.
His death (physical death) is His own choosing (as designed in salvation of His elects) – Nobody took His (bodily) life away from Him – He offered it Himself – the perfect (clean & pure – without ‘sin and Adam weakness’ blemish) sacrifice!
Satan uses Biblical passages – he also uses verses to tempt Jesus – thus, any man can use verses to twist the subject of Jesus’ humanity, to level it to Adam’s humanity!
(Personal note: I will not engage any cults/groups in further blabberies about this topic!)
In likeness and in form means that Jesus has the same human body as we do, but is still different from us. Because in us is the spirit of man, not the fullness of Godhead.
Jesus' humanity is traced to Adam.
16...Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. (Mat. 1:16)
"...which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38)
Luke's purpose in showing the genealogy of Jesus and tracing it to Adam is to show that Jesus did not have a special divine body that came from heaven, but an ordinary human body that was descended from other humans. Just in case some people entertain other notions.
The genealogy was meant for something else – not to prove that Jesus’ humanity is exactly like you and me and everybody else – bearing the CONDEMNATION of GOD!
In fact, there are 2 genealogies (one for Mary, and another for Joseph) – among others, it shows God’s fulfillment of His promise to King David (both ways)! But David knew that the baby of Mary & ‘Joseph’ is different because he acknowledged that person Jesus as God during his time – not his typical offspring (descendants). To some cultures, genealogies are ways to highlight the importance of the man to whom the genealogies are being attributed to.
Ang problema, sinulat na nga, wala pa rin.
The problem of Fundamental Christianity about your view is not new!
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 26, 2012 at 11:12 PM
This one was aimed at religious protesters who made noise about Lady Gaga
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/536033_347165305351168_1632210973_n.jpg)
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 26, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Post by: Dilbert7 on May 26, 2012 at 11:32 PM
What makes your interpretation of the Bible superior to everyone else's? And what makes you think Christ wasn't referring to people like YOU?
What's up doc?
We are all under CONDEMNATION - did I exempt myself? Is this what you mean?
Or are you rooting for Lady G.?
The documentation above are internet files - I did not say it when it refer to other religious groups. As in audiophiles, to each his own poison!
Did I say my interpretation of the Bible is superior to everyone else? - it just so happen my belief is the same with others who defended the same position?
If there has been no closure before on that debate - neither will it have today!
Post by: sharkey360 on May 27, 2012 at 08:51 AM
David Barton Says Church Law Should Overrule Supreme Court Rulings
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/24/david-barton-says-church-law-should-overrule-supreme-court-rulings-video/
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 27, 2012 at 09:39 AM
Post by: barrister on May 27, 2012 at 10:43 AM
The genealogy was meant for something else – not to prove that Jesus’ humanity is exactly like you and me and everybody else – bearing the CONDEMNATION of GOD!
In fact, there are 2 genealogies (one for Mary, and another for Joseph) – among others, it shows God’s fulfillment of His promise to King David (both ways)! But David knew that the baby of Mary & ‘Joseph’ is different because he acknowledged that person Jesus as God during his time – not his typical offspring (descendants). To some cultures, genealogies are ways to highlight the importance of the man to whom the genealogies are being attributed to.
I was the one who cited both genealogies, so I am very much aware that there are two genealogies.
You only mention one reason for the genealogies --- to trace the Davidic line. But why did the bible present 2 genealogies that vary from each other?
Notice the discrepancy between the Matthew and Luke genealogies:
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. (Matt. 1:16)
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Luke 3:23)
Matthew says Joseph was the son of Jacob. But Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli. Which one is correct?
Both are correct. Joseph was the biological son of Jacob. Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli (the word "son" has a broad meaning in Jewish genealogies). Therefore, Heli was actually Mary's father.
The Matthew genealogy traces Jesus to the Davidic line. The purpose is to show that Jesus is the Messiah, expected to be a descendant and heir of King David, the fulfillment of the promises to David and Abraham. That is why the gospel of Matthew begins: "This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:".
That is why Matthew starts with Abraham and and ends with Jesus --- to show the royal line and the the fulfillment of the promise.
In contrast, the Luke genealogy traces Jesus to the line of Mary. The purpose is to show the humanity of Jesus.
That is why Luke starts with Jesus, goes though the line of Mary (by way of her father Heli), all the way to Adam --- to show that the earthly body of Jesus is fully human, a descendant of Adam.
You, on the other hand, only explain the purpose of the Matthew genealogy, but you fail to explain the purpose of the Luke genealogy.
==================================
--> Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
All are under condemnation! if you don’t think condemnation referred to the 2nd death, I do not know why do you need Christ for? Since you will still die (the 1st death – barrister condemnation version) anyway!
Condemnation (2nd death being the ultimate) is inherent in every man – inherited by humans from the being contaminated by Adam.
... Again, the 1st death is part of the total package of CONDEMNATION of God – but is not the all of it (which you are fond of insisting). Otherwise, What is the sense of Jesus dying to take away that condemnation if condemnation only refer to 1st death (See above Romans 5:18 and Romans 8:1)
The 1st death is in all men, that is why all die the physical death. The 2nd death is not in all men, that is why not all will die the 2nd death in the lake of fire.
If the 2nd death is inherent in all men, why is it that not all will die the 2nd death?
"Judgment came upon all men to condemnation" --- All men are condemned to the 1st death. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" --- No condemnation to the 2nd death if you are in Christ Jesus, because even if you die the 1st death, you will later resurrect to eternal life.
Mahirap bang intindihin yon?
Without Jesus Christ, there is only the condemnation of death for all of us ---- we won't call it "1st death" or 2nd death" --- just "death," because there would only be one death.
With Jesus Christ came the promise of resurrection. With the promise of resurrection came the 2 resurrections: the resurrection to eternal life (1st resurrection), and the resurrection to damnation (2nd resurrection). With the 2nd resurrection came the 2nd death - death in the lake of fire.
Why do we need Jesus Christ? Because without Him, there is no 1st resurrection, only death.
Now that Jesus Christ came to resurrect us, does it mean all of us will be resurrected? No. Those who follow Him will get the 1st resurrection; those who do not, will get the 2nd resurrection and the 2nd death.
It's really so simple that I can't see what the problem is.
You have so far failed to refute my position. All you're doing is repeat what you already said.
==================================
And did you wonder Why Moses will not taste the 2nd death? Is it because he was righteous? Read Romans 8:1 again!
That's easy.
Here's Romans 8:1 again, continued up to verse 4:
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Moses will not see the 2nd death, because there is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ Jesus." How can you be "in Christ Jesus"? E di righteous ka nga dapat. Notice that Romans 8:4 still requires righteousness according to the spirit, but not righteousness according to the flesh/law.
Puwede ba yung hindi pa nga incarnated si Jesus Christ noong panahon Moses, sasabihin pa rin nating "in Christ Jesus" si Moses? Yes. Even if Christ had not yet incarnated during Moses' time, Hebrews 11 ("The Faith Chapter") says Moses sacrificed "for the sake of Christ," because Moses was looking ahead:
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. 25 He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.
... 39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. (Hebrews 11: 24-26; 39-40)
Even if the patriarchs of the Old Testament all had faith, "none of them received what had been promised", because they all died the condemnation of the 1st death. Why? Because "God planned something better" --- the 1st resurrection --- so that "only together with us would they be made perfect" when all the righteous resurrect to eternal life.
Very simple.
==================================
I will not engage you anymore in this topic – we have different religious perception.
Agreed.
Nagpapasalamat pa rin ako sa iyo sir, kasi kahit napakahaba ng ating sagutan, naging maginoo pa rin ang ating diskusyon.
At least nakita ng ibang miyembro ang posisyon ng ating dalawang panig, kahit hindi tayo nagkasundo.
Post by: tigkal on May 28, 2012 at 06:57 AM
No, hindi pa rin ganon yon.
Kahit kumain sila sa tree of life, hindi pa rin sila katulad ng Diyos Ama. Unang-una, hindi sila magiging spirit, may physical bodies pa rin sila.
Akala ko ba pag mamatay tayo maging spirit na din tayo. And mas higher level yung may physical bodies kaysa sa spirit kaya meron spirit possession kasi gusto ng mga spirit na magkaroon ng body
Hindi pa rin ganon.
Adam and Eve were allowed to eat any fruit, except the forbidden fruit. Therefore, we can assume that before the fall, they were also eating from the tree of life.
Ang sabi ng Diyos tungkol sa forbidden fruit, "when you eat from it you will certainly die." Hindi sinabing as soon as you eat, you will immediately die; ang sabi lang, you will certainly die. This means death will be in the future, but will be certain. At totoo nga ang sabi ng Diyos --- as soon as they ate the forbidden fruit, they became subject to aging and death, and eventually died.
So the purpose of banishment from eden is because tree of knowledge and tree of life combination is not acceptable to the creator? Hmm.. New idea.
How about the tree of life?
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” (Gen. 3:22)
God did not say they became like God in all aspects. He simply said said they became "like one of us, knowing good and evil." So you see, they did not become like God as an all-powerful, all-wise, immortal spirit. They became like God only in the aspect of knowing the difference between good and evil, nothing more. But they still had physical bodies, and this time, their bodies are now subject to aging, disease and death.
Yes, they would have lived forever had they been allowed to eat from the tree of life, but they would still have been subject to aging, disease, etc., because they had already eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Kawawa naman sila kung ganon. Na-stroke na, may Alzheimer's at Parkinson's pa, may rayuma pa, pero hindi mamatay-matay.
Dahil sa pagmamahal ng Diyos, mas ginusto Niya na mamatay sina Adan at Eba eventually, kaysa magkaroon lang sila ng walang katapusang physical suffering.
Ngayon, pag nakarinig ka ng malalim sa sagot, masasabi mo na yung common answer na sina Adam and Eve daw "died a spiritual death" ay talaga namang sagot ng tamad... ;)
Akala ko we are like god. with the knowledge naman we can conquer disease. what we cannot conquer right now is aging. yun sana ang maibigay sa tree of life na fruit.
Post by: sharkey360 on May 28, 2012 at 07:29 AM
“I figured a way out – a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers – but I couldn’t get it past the Congress,” Worley said during the sermon.
“Build a great big, large fence–50 or 100 miles long–put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed them. And you know in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce,” said Worley.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/05/hundreds-rally-to-protest-n-c-pastor-who-called-for-electrocution-of-gays/
Video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
Post by: barrister on May 28, 2012 at 11:58 AM
So the purpose of banishment from eden is because tree of knowledge and tree of life combination is not acceptable to the creator? Hmm.. New idea.
I'm not a member of any formal religious group, that's why some of my views are unusual.
Ang tendency kasi, pag may religious affiliation ka, basta tatanggapin mo na lang yung aral ng pari o pastor mo, kahit obviously wala namang sense yung aral nila.
Akala ko we are like god. with the knowledge naman we can conquer disease. what we cannot conquer right now is aging. yun sana ang maibigay sa tree of life na fruit.
I assure you, disease will never be conquered by man until the end, no matter how advanced medical science becomes. We're already so advanced in medical science, pero AIDS, hindi pa rin magamot. One of these days, man might find a cure for AIDS. But after that, another new disease will come that will again be incurable.
How can I be so sure? Because it is already prophesied in the Book of Revelation:
7 When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” 8 I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth. (Rev. 6: 7 & 8 )
They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. (Rev. 11:6)
6 Out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues. ... 8 ... and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed. (Rev. 15:6; 8 )
So you see, even in the end times, may disease pa rin. "Plague" pa nga, e.
Akala ko ba pag mamatay tayo maging spirit na din tayo. And mas higher level yung may physical bodies kaysa sa spirit kaya meron spirit possession kasi gusto ng mga spirit na magkaroon ng body
No, hindi ganon sa bibliya. Sa bible, pag namatay, patay. Walang consciousness. Lahat ng mga tao na namatay, patay pa rin hanggang ngayon.
Yan ang isang example ng conventional na aral ng religious groups. Pag namatay, magiging conscious spirit daw agad. Pero hindi ganon ang nasa bible. Ano ang nangyayari pag namatay ang tao?
- The body dies and returns to dust; the spirit goes back to God: "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (Eccles. 5:7)
- The spirit goes back to God, but the dead remain unconscious: "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing" (Eccles. 9:5)
- No human has ever resurrected as a conscious spirit until now, because that is yet to happen in the future: "51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (1 Cor. 15:51 & 52)
- The resurrection will happen in the future --- "at the last trumpet." When will the last trumpet come? After the Great Tribulation in the Book of Revelation, at the seventh trumpet. The Great Tribulation in Revelation has not yet come, so nobody has become a conscious spirit until now.
- E bakit yung magnanakaw sa krus, kakasamahin daw sa paraiso? Bakit yung lolo mo, nagmumulto? :D That's another long topic. 8)
=================================
I can understand the confusion, especially if you're Catholic. I used to be a devout Catholic myself.
Sa Katoliko, may mga tao na raw ngayon sa langit. In fact, ang dami na nga raw santo sa langit ngayon. Si Mama Mary, nasa langit na raw... believe it or not, siguradong sigurado silang nasa langit na si Mama Mary, may date pa kung kailan daw napunta sa langit ---- August 15, the Feast of the Assumption.
Post by: dpogs on May 29, 2012 at 11:03 AM
how about the instance between beggar Lazarus and rich man having conversation. rich man in fire lazarus in bossom of God.
Post by: barrister on May 29, 2012 at 01:03 PM
hmmm...
how about the instance between beggar Lazarus and rich man having conversation. rich man in fire lazarus in bossom of God.
That was merely a parable.
Around 2,000 years after Abraham's death, Jesus declared that not a single human has ever gone to heaven:
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. (John 3:13)
Therefore, Abraham could not have been in heaven at the time Jesus said that.
If Lazarus and Abraham were already in heaven at the time Jesus was speaking, then it means nauna pa sila kay Kristo. That would be contrary to the very basic principle that Christ is always first.
That is why Christ is the first to resurrect from physical death. In the bible, that's called the "firstfruits," and that's a very important biblical principle:
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15: 20-23)
Christ is the firstfuits of those who have died. Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ.
All who are "in Christ" will go to heaven. But that has not yet happened --- "But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."
Christ first. Then, when He returns (in the last days, as described in Revelation), all who are in Him will be made alive at the same time. Hindi yung una-una.
Kaya wala pa sa langit sina Abraham at Lazarus, kasi hindi nga una-na. Bakit ganon yung kuwento ni Jesus sa Luke 16? Kasi nga parable lang yon.
=================================
And it's not "bosom of God." The verse says "Abraham's bosom":
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; (Luke 16:22)
What is the meaning of the term "Abraham's bosom"?
Post by: dpogs on May 29, 2012 at 02:08 PM
Post by: JT on May 29, 2012 at 02:33 PM
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven —the Son of Man. (John 3:13)
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15: 20-23)
Christ is the firstfuits of those who have died. Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ.
All who are "in Christ" will go to heaven. But that has not yet happened --- "But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."
Christ first. Then, when He returns (in the last days, as described in Revelation), all who are in Him will be made alive at the same time. Hindi yung una-una.
Kaya wala pa sa langit sina Abraham at Lazarus, kasi hindi nga una-na. Bakit ganon yung kuwento ni Jesus sa Luke 16? Kasi nga parable lang yon.
While it is clear in the bible that Jesus was the first fruit, resurrected from the dead and went to heaven. And Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ.
Is it possible that they have already gone to heaven after Christ?
Can someone shed some light as to who are these people mentioned in Revelation 6:9-11(NKJV) "Fifth Seal The Cry of the Martyrs":
"When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed."
Clearly this event was taking place in heaven nor these people are sleeping since they cry in a loud voice and yet there are still people on earth.
Revelation also mentions about the Elders. Could it be that these are Abraham and early fathers of Faith as mentioned in Hebrew 11?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 29, 2012 at 03:01 PM
While it is clear in the bible that Jesus was the first fruit, resurrected from the dead and went to heaven. And Abraham and Lazarus could not have gone to heaven earlier than Christ.
Is it possible that they have already gone to heaven after Christ?
Yun din ang alam ko. Luke 23:43 re rebels/criminals crucified:
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
So either paradise is heaven or Abraham's bosom?
Post by: dpogs on May 29, 2012 at 03:06 PM
whether it is heaven or abraham's bosom... it is clear that Jesus goes to paradise kasama ang isang nakapako sa krus...
"... today you will be with me in paradise."
asan si Kristo nang 3 araw habang wala siya?
Post by: barrister on May 29, 2012 at 08:15 PM
Yun din ang alam ko. Luke 23:43 re rebels/criminals crucified:
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
So either paradise is heaven or Abraham's bosom?
I won't answer "Abraham's bosom" yet. Hihintayin ko munang aminin ni sir dpogs na hindi niya alam kung ano ang meaning ng "Abraham's bosom." ;)
================================
As for Luke 23: 42-43, this is a very advanced topic. Ako pa nga mismo ang unang nagbigay ng hint:
- E bakit yung magnanakaw sa krus, kakasamahin daw sa paraiso? Bakit yung lolo mo, nagmumulto? :D That's another long topic. 8)
Hindi na lang ako nag-elaborate kasi mahaba, at baka walang intersado. Kasi nga medyo complex na ang topic na ito. Yung mga simple nga, hindi pa ma-gets, e. :D But anyway...
First, let's examine Luke 23: 42-43:
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (New International Version)
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. (King James Version)
The King James Version and the New International Version are very popular translations of the bible. Unfortunately, both have translation errors in Luke 23:43. And that is the source of the confusion.
Compare:
1. Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.
2. Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.
You drastically change the meaning when you change the placement of the comma. In #1, the word "today" refers to "you will be with me in paradise." In #2, the word "today" refers to "truly I tell you."
The original Greek text did not use commas. Any comma placed by the translator is an interpretation based on his own understanding, requiring an addition of something that wasn't in the original.
A literal translation without commas would read:
and Jesus said to him verily I say to thee to-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise
Placing the comma before "to-day" leaves us with an awkward sentence construction. A more logical placement of the comma after "to-day" (with complete punctuation) would read as follows:
and Jesus said to him, 'Verily I say to thee to-day, with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'
However, this matter cannot be resolved with the difference between awkward and logical sentence construction. The more solid argument is that placing the comma after "to-day" seems to be the correct translation, since that would make the verse coincide with other parts of the bible.
Remember that Jesus was dead and buried for 3 days, and ascended to heaven 40 days later. If we accept the wrong translation with the improper placement of the comma, that would make Christ a liar, because He and the thief were not together in paradise on the same day of their crucifixion.
Hence, the CLNT (Concordant Literal New Testament) renders Luke 23:43 as follows:
43 And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise."
And that's the more accurate rendition of the verse.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Hence, the CLNT (Concordant Literal New Testament) renders Luke 23:43 as follows:
43 And Jesus said to him, "Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise."
Which is the more accurate rendition of the verse.
1. So what was the original transcript, in greek?
2. kung walang comma sa greek, how come naging mas-accurate ang CLNT kung may commas din ang CLNT version...?
Post by: barrister on May 29, 2012 at 11:16 PM
1. So what was the original transcript, in greek?
Yes, the New Testament is in Greek and Aramaic. The Old Testament is in Hebrew.
2. kung walang comma sa greek, how come naging mas-accurate ang CLNT kung may commas din ang CLNT version...?
Merong comma sa Greek. Pero sa ancient Greek, punctuation appeared sometime in the 9th century. The gospel of Luke was written in the 1st century, wala pang punctuation.
Some New Testament Greek manuscripts have commas. But the oldest (and therefore more reliable) New Testament manuscripts have no punctuation. The original did not have punctuation.
Pero hindi dahil may comma ay inaccurate na agad.
May comma, pero tama ang puwesto ng comma --- accurate.
May comma rin, pero mali ang puwesto ng comma --- inaccurate.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 29, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Merong comma sa Greek. Pero sa ancient Greek, punctuation appeared sometime in the 9th century. The gospel of Luke was written in the 1st century, wala pang punctuation.
Some New Testament Greek manuscripts have commas. But the oldest (and therefore more reliable) New Testament manuscripts have no punctuation. The original did not have punctuation.
Pero hindi dahil may comma ay inaccurate na agad.
May comma, pero tama ang puwesto ng comma --- accurate.
May comma rin, pero mali ang puwesto ng comma --- inaccurate.
So how do we determine kung saan ang comma if the original transcript does not have a comma...? I mean how do we know whether tama or mali ang pwesto ng comma?
I suppose you would answer, dapat it should blend with other parts of the bible teachings. pero in this case kasi, kinda vague din ata ang bible pagdating sa topic na ito...?
Post by: barrister on May 29, 2012 at 11:35 PM
So how do we determine kung saan ang comma if the original transcript does not have a comma...? I mean how do we know whether tama or mali ang pwesto ng comma?
I suppose you would answer, dapat it should blend with other parts of the bible teachings. pero in this case kasi, kinda vague din ata ang bible pagdating sa topic na ito...?
Just go over my prior posts, kasi uulitin ko lang yung mga na post ko na.
I assure you, the bible is not vague regarding those points. God will not cause the bible to be written if it's going to be vague anyway. Otherwise, don't bother studying the bible because it's going to be a waste of your time.
=================================
Kung ang comma ay before "today," ang lalabas:
- and Jesus said to him verily I say to thee, to-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise --- OK na sa iyo yung "to-day with me thou shalt be," na maling structure ng sentence, o mas tama yung "verily I say to thee to-day, with me thou shalt be"?
At ang lalabas din:
- Nagsinungaling si Kristo kay Maria Magdalena, kasi nakaakyat na pala Siya sa langit kasama ng magnanakaw, pero sabi Niya kay Mary Magdalene 3 days later, hindi pa raw Siya nakakaakyat sa langit: 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father (John 20:17)
- Or, kung hindi Siya nagsinungaling kay Magdalena, nagsinungaling naman Siya sa magnanakaw, kasi hindi naman sila nagkasama sa langit nang araw na yon.
- Hindi totoo yung sinasabi sa Revelation at sa 1 Corinthians na sabay-sabay daw ang resurrection sa huling araw, kasi nauna sa langit yung magnanakaw.
- Talo pa ng magnanakaw sina Abraham, Moses, etc., kasi nauna pa siya sa langit, samantalang sina Moses, Abraham, etc., wala pa sa langit hanggang ngayon.
- Hindi totoo na si Kristo ang "firstfruits," kasi nauna pa yung magnanakaw sa langit, samantalang si Kristo, 3 days nakalibing, tapos 40 days pa sa lupa bago umakyat sa langit. Ang lumalabas, talo pa ng magnanakaw si Kristo mismo, which is absurd.
Alangan namang dahil sa isang comma, Ok lang sa iyong masirang lahat ang mga nakasulat na yon.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 30, 2012 at 06:44 AM
Post by: sharkey360 on May 30, 2012 at 07:01 AM
Post by: barrister on May 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM
I know. My initial query was, after Christ's Resurrection sa gospel, those who are with Christ that died prior to Christ's ressurection (mga nasa Abraham's Bosom) ay nasa heaven na ngayon. meaning Abraham's Bosom is "empty" na...?
Those who are in Christ that died prior to Christ's resurrection are still dead. All of the dead in Christ will resurrect when Christ returns to earth, sabay-sabay tayo.
... so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Cor. 15: 20-23)
Sabay-sabay nga tayong pupunta sa langit, paanong may nauna sa langit?
- No human has ever resurrected as a conscious spirit until now, because that is yet to happen in the future: "51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (1 Cor. 15:51 & 52)
- The resurrection will happen in the future --- "at the last trumpet." When will the last trumpet come? After the Great Tribulation in the Book of Revelation, at the seventh trumpet. The Great Tribulation in Revelation has not yet come, so nobody has become a conscious spirit until now.
I won't answer "Abraham's bosom" yet. Hihintayin ko munang aminin ni sir dpogs na hindi niya alam kung ano ang meaning ng "Abraham's bosom." ;)
There is no human who is in heaven today, or whose spirit is in heaven today.
Para masabi mo na after Christ resurrected, may mga tao na nakarating din sa langit, you should first find the bible verse showing it. It is not enough to merely agree with the false teachings of religious leaders and simply assume they are true.
One of these days, you will hear arguments insisting that there are bible verses proving that Elijah, Moses and Enoch are in heaven now. That's not true. Lumang tugtugin na sa akin yon. Cite the verse and I will show you that they did not understand what they read.
You will also hear arguments that while Jesus was dead and buried for 3 days, he went to hell and preached to the dead. That's utter nonsense. Malaki sayad sa kukote non.
Tapos meron namang mga religious group na naniniwala sa "secret rapture." Nasa bible daw, kukunin tayo ni Lord, we will vanish from earth and go straight to heaven. Magugulat daw yung mga kaibigan at kamag-anak natin kasi bigla tayong maglalaho. Hindi raw sabay-sabay lahat sa last judgment ang resurrection kasi may mauuna ---- yung kukunin sa secret rapture. Pero malaking kalokohan din yon ... :D
Post by: dpogs on May 30, 2012 at 01:21 PM
When Jesus said to the crminial on the cross na kasama siya ni Kristo sa paradise at sinabi niya sa babae na touch me not... only because Jesus was in Abraham's bosom for 3 days He really didnt go to heaven.
Matthew 12
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Post by: indie boi on May 30, 2012 at 01:31 PM
Matthew 12
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Just curious, since creation is taken quite literally by some Christians, does the passage above mean that people believe that it's an actual, physical place near the center of the earth?
Post by: dpogs on May 30, 2012 at 02:14 PM
Just curious, since creation is taken quite literally by some Christians, does the passage above mean that people believe that it's an actual, physical place near the center of the earth?
same as I believe that hell (while waiting for judgement day) is in the center of the earht.
Post by: dpogs on May 30, 2012 at 02:19 PM
Does your religion make you think that entertainment forms like movies, music, video games and toys spread evil and immorality?
as long as it doesnt contradict the values in the Bible... (religion have nothing to do with it).
Post by: barrister on May 30, 2012 at 02:42 PM
Just curious, since creation is taken quite literally by some Christians, does the passage above mean that people believe that it's an actual, physical place near the center of the earth?
No. The belief that the "heart of the earth" is the center of the earth, and that hell and paradise are also in the same geographical location in the center of the earth are Baptist beliefs. And sir dpogs' description of "Abraham's bosom" is wrong (actually, malayo nga, e :D).
Jesus was in a tomb; He was definitely not 2,000 miles down in the center of the earth.
Hell is not in the center of the earth.
In English, all of the original Hebrew and Greek words "Gehenna," "Sheol," "Tartarus," and "Hades" were translated to "Hell." This caused the original meaning to be lost.
Tartarus is a spiritual condition of bondage for the angels that sinned. The word is Greek, and was used only once, in 2 Peter 2:4. It does not contain humans, but only fallen angels. It is a spiritual place, not a physical place with a geographic location. So it's definitely not 2,000 miles below the surface of the earth.
Sheol is Hebrew for grave. Hades is Greek for the Hebrew Sheol, so it is also the grave. They do not refer to a place 2,000 miles below the surface of the earth.
But Gehenna was a place outside ancient Jerusalem, known in Jesus' time as "Gei Hinnom," or "Valley of Hinnom" in English.
The Valley of Hinnom was used by Jesus to describe the lake of fire, the eternal punishment in Revelation, because during Roman times, there was always a fire burning there. The Valley of Hinnom was a garbage dump where waste materials and dead bodies of criminals and animals were thrown, and fires were kept burning to consume the garbage. Parang Smoky Mountain garbage dump natin noon, where fire was used to consume the garbage that never stopped coming.
Obviously, "Gehenna" is not in the center of the earth either.
Therefeore, none of the terms "Gehenna," "Sheol," "Tartarus," and "Hades" mean that the lake of fire is a place that is located in the center of the earth.
In fact, the lake of fire does not even exist yet. It will only exist in the future --- on judgment day, as described in Revelation. And even then, the lake of fire will not be in the center of the earth. It will simply be similar to the Valley of Hinnom, just like the analogy of Jesus.
In those days, the people listening to Jesus didn't even know that the earth was a sphere; they thought the earth was flat. So why assume that the term "heart of the earth" in those days was understood to refer to the center of a globe? That's just silly.
Contrary to Baptist belief, "heart of the earth" in Matt. 12: 40 does not mean "center of the earth." Napakalayo naman po ... :D
Post by: sharkey360 on May 31, 2012 at 09:23 AM
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MissionGathering-Church-76784481058.jpeg)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/30/church-places-apology-to-gay-community-on-billboard-along-billy-graham-parkway-in-north-carolina-image/
Post by: barrister on May 31, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Church Places Apology To Gay Community On Billboard Along Billy Graham Parkway in North Carolina
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/MissionGathering-Church-76784481058.jpeg)
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/30/church-places-apology-to-gay-community-on-billboard-along-billy-graham-parkway-in-north-carolina-image/
Nakakatawa naman ang billboard, napakalabo ng wording... :D
To whom are they apologizing? ---- ang sabi, "so many" whose "rights & equality" were taken away "in the name of God"?
Ang labo naman non. Why not just say "sorry to gay people"?
Ang gusto yata ay billboard na politically correct? They're nothing but cowards pretending to be fearless.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 31, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Yes, same sex marriage is an equal rights issue. If a straight man can marry a woman that HE LOVES and receive all the tax benefits and legal benefits that marriage affords, then why can't a gay man marry a man that HE ALSO LOVES and get the same benefits? So it's a CIVIL RIGHTS issue, not a religious or moral issue.
I haven't encountered a sound, logical argument against that. You can't invoke religion because government is supposed to be SECULAR. If your religion has something against gay marriage, you're free not to get gay-married. Every time I hear someone try to speak out against it without invoking religion, they often resort to slippery slope and straw man arguments.
Post by: barrister on May 31, 2012 at 12:59 PM
North Carolina voted to ban gay marriage. They're apologizing to the gay and lesbian people who want to get married but can't because the state has banned it due to conservative Christians.
That's right. But my point is, if they wanted to apologize to gays and lesbians, then they should have directly stated "gays and lesbians" in the billboard. I would have had more respect for them if they did.
Instead of simply and directly saying "of gays and lesbians," ang sabi lang, "of so many" daw, using the smallest font in the whole billboard ... :D
Meron pang "narrow minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions" na sinasabi --- wow, kunyari matapang ... :D
Let's face it. They think it's wrong to discriminate against the LGBTs, but at the same time, they're also afraid of offending conservative Christians too much. To me, masyadong showbiz naman yan.
I haven't encountered a sound, logical argument against that. You can't invoke religion because government is supposed to be SECULAR. If your religion has something against gay marriage, you're free not to get gay-married. Every time I hear someone try to speak out against it without invoking religion, they often resort to slippery slope and straw man arguments.
I agree.
Don't get me wrong. I believe the state should be free to govern as it sees fit, without undue interference from religious groups. So I really don't care if same sex marriage is allowed by government or not.
What I'm saying is, if those religious groups want to make a stand in favor of the LGBT community, they should take that stand all the way, and start by at least stating their position clearly.
Post by: oweidah on Jun 01, 2012 at 12:21 AM
'Serpent-Handling' West Virginia Pastor Dies From Snake Bite
A "serpent-handling" West Virginia pastor died after his rattlesnake bit him during a church ritual, just as the man had apparently watched a snake kill his father years before.
like father like son. way to go!
Post by: barrister on Jun 01, 2012 at 10:33 AM
Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Yan ang nangyayari pag hindi marunong bumasa ng bibliya.
Matagal na ang practice na religious snake-handling based on Mark 16: 17-18. Amerikano ang nag-umpisa :D, about 100 years ago by Pentecostals in the US Appalachian states. May saltik ang mga yan.
Post by: bananabond on Jun 03, 2012 at 05:14 PM
From the same article:
Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Yan ang nangyayari pag hindi marunong bumasa ng bibliya.
Matagal na ang practice na religious snake-handling based on Mark 16: 17-18. Amerikano ang nag-umpisa :D, about 100 years ago by Pentecostals in the US Appalachian states. May saltik ang mga yan.
tamang tama kaka discuss lang namin to ng officemate ko(my officemate is church of god or dating daan)
because of these verses ,a few years back daw eh meron naman uminom ng lason just to prove na hidi sila mamamatay.
sir barrister, ano ba ang tunay na interpretation ng verses na ito. sabi naman ng office mate ko eh dag dag daw ito from mark 11 onwards eh dag dag na daw.
Post by: barrister on Jun 03, 2012 at 08:21 PM
sir barrister, ano ba ang tunay na interpretation ng verses na ito. sabi naman ng office mate ko eh dag dag daw ito from mark 11 onwards eh dag dag na daw.
That's correct. Dagdag nga iyon, kaya wala dapat interpretation, kasi sayang lang ang panahon mo... :D.
Mark 16:9-20 lang ang dagdag, hindi Mark 11 onwards. Baka nakalimutan lang ng officemate mo ang tamang chapter and verse numbers. I'm sure alam ng officemate mo yon, kasi kung alam niyang may dagdag sa Mark, it means hindi na siya newbie sa bibliya.
See annotation on the New International Version: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV
tamang tama kaka discuss lang namin to ng officemate ko(my officemate is church of god or dating daan)
because of these verses ,a few years back daw eh meron naman uminom ng lason just to prove na hidi sila mamamatay.
Kung Dating Daan ang officemate mo, siguro iyan yung madalas sabihin ni Eli Soriano na mass suicide sa Jonestown, Guyana, by the Peoples Temple cult led by Jim Jones. In 1978, the members of the Peoples Temple committed mass suicide, where 909 of them died, making it the mass-suicide record-holder.
Sabi ni Eli Soriano, based on Mark 16:17-18 daw kaya sila uminom ng lason at nag-suicide, but that's not correct. Kung ganon, e di hindi pala suicide, kasi walang deliberate intent to kill themselves.
But the cult members were not demostrating that cyanide had no effect on them. They intentionally commited suicide so that they can "die with some dignity," because they believed they were about to be tortured and massacred by government forces. Mark 16 had nothing to do with it. The bible had nothing to do with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones#Deaths_in_Jonestown
The incident is the source of the expression, "Don't drink the Kool-Aid."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
=================================
Walang pagtatalo na original talaga ang Mark 16: 1-8. Pero malaki ang duda sa verses 9 to 20, which is called the "longer ending."
Bakit may duda? Dalawa ang dahilan:
(1). There are many manuscripts that end at verse 20, but the oldest reliable manuscripts stop at verse 8.
Based on that, a reliable translation should stop at verse 8. Unfortunately, may pangahas na scribe na nagdagdag ng verses 9-20, at nakopya na lang yon sa sumunod na manuscripts.
Pag tinapos sa verse 8, parang naputol ang composition. Kaya may speculation na baka nasira na ang complete Mark 16 na original, at hanggang verse 8 na lang ang nag-survive. Pero posible rin na wala namang kulang, at talagang ganon ang original ending ng Mark 16.
(2). Ang sinasabi sa verses 9-20 ay hindi consistent sa ibang parte ng bibliya. Medyo advanced study na ang presentation ng inconsistencies na yon.
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 04, 2012 at 04:12 PM
tamang tama kaka discuss lang namin to ng officemate ko(my officemate is church of god or dating daan)
because of these verses ,a few years back daw eh meron naman uminom ng lason just to prove na hidi sila mamamatay.
sir barrister, ano ba ang tunay na interpretation ng verses na ito. sabi naman ng office mate ko eh dag dag daw ito from mark 11 onwards eh dag dag na daw.
napanood ko nga dati si Bro. Eli saying na dagdag lang daw yang mga passages sa Mark, kaso yung kalaban niyang INC nakapagpakita ng video na ginagamit din nya yung mga dagdag na verses at other times in proving a point. so i don't know lol
Post by: barrister on Jun 04, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Hindi siguro magkakamali si Eli Soriano sa verses na yon. Kung Matthew, Mark, Luke and John lang, e memorized niya yon word for word.
At hindi naman kasi pambihira ang ganong idea; common knowledge nga iyon sa mga bible scholars. Mag google ka lang o kahit Wikipedia lang, lilitaw na yon e.
I'm not defending Eli Soriano, ha. Sa katunayan, kinokontra ko nga siya sa thread na inumpisahan ko noong 2003:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,12294.0.html
Post by: tigkal on Jun 05, 2012 at 05:25 AM
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 05, 2012 at 08:20 AM
Matagal ko nang napapanood si Eli Soriano, late 1980s pa sa channel 13. Ginagamit lang niya ang Mark 16: 9-20 para ipakita na inserted verses yon.
Hindi siguro magkakamali si Eli Soriano sa verses na yon. Kung Matthew, Mark, Luke and John lang, e memorized niya yon word for word.
At hindi naman kasi pambihira ang ganong idea; common knowledge nga iyon sa mga bible scholars. Mag google ka lang o kahit Wikipedia lang, lilitaw na yon e.
I'm not defending Eli Soriano, ha. Sa katunayan, kinokontra ko nga siya sa thread na inumpisahan ko noong 2003:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,12294.0.html
sa napanood ko kasi talagang ginamit nyang batayan yun and if I remember it right, that was to answer a question from an audience and the question is not about the veracity of the said verses but he used it to prove the verses' points to answer the question.
I also watched some of the Fourth Watch's broadcast before and I think they featured this "seemingly" selective use of those verses also by Bro. Eli
Post by: barrister on Jun 05, 2012 at 10:13 AM
sa napanood ko kasi talagang ginamit nyang batayan yun and if I remember it right, that was to answer a question from an audience and the question is not about the veracity of the said verses but he used it to prove the verses' points to answer the question.
I also watched some of the Fourth Watch's broadcast before and I think they featured this "seemingly" selective use of those verses also by Bro. Eli
Interesting. Bihira na lang kasi akong makapanood ng Dating Daan. Nagsawa ako around 10 years ago.
Did you see it on the Ang Dating Daan program itself, or did you see it only as featured footage on a different program such as Iglesia ni Kristo or Fourth Watch?
There was a time when Soriano accused his enemies of featuring Ang Dating Daan footage with deliberate manipulative editing to make him look bad. Matinding kalaban niya noon yung Ang Tamang Daan of the INC.
If dagdag yun, it means not true? Or may be not true?
Kung dagdag yon, fake yon. Ang tunay, inspired by God. Ang fake, tao lang ang author, walang inspiration of God.
Wala namang masama per se kung tao lang ang author. Ang masama, yung niloloko ang kapwa, kunyari inspired by God, hindi naman pala.
Here's another example, just to maintain your interest ---- ever heard of the controversy regarding the "Pericope Adulterae"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
Post by: tigkal on Jun 05, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 05, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Interesting. Bihira na lang kasi akong makapanood ng Dating Daan. Nagsawa ako around 10 years ago.
Did you see it on the Ang Dating Daan program itself, or did you see it only as featured footage on a different program such as Iglesia ni Kristo or Fourth Watch?
There was a time when Soriano accused his enemies of featuring Ang Dating Daan footage with deliberate manipulative editing to make him look bad. Matinding kalaban niya noon yung Ang Tamang Daan of the INC.
I really cannot remember exactly sa dami ng napanood kong iba-ibang religious programs pero unti unti may naaalala akong detalye.
sa natatandaan ko na ngayon may nagtanong pala kay Bro. Eli patungkol sa nilalaman ng Marcos 16:15-16 patungkol sa ginagawa yata ng mga Jehova's Witnesses at Mormons na naglalakad at nangangaral sa kung saan-saan na ang sagot pala niya ay hindi naman daw para sa kanila yun dahil dagdag nga daw ang talatang yun sa Biblia,
saka ko pala napanood na may revelation ang INK or Fourth Watch and I really looked for it and it so happened na sa magazine pala nila na "Ang Dating Daan" ginagamit na batayan ni Bro. Eli ang said verses na in other times ay ayaw nyang tanggapin dahil dagdag nga lang daw.
quoted from the mag;
Ang Dating Daan Magazine, issue date: February 1989, page 10:
“Yon ang kaganapan noong pagiging tunay na Born Again. Dumaan sa pagtanggap ng aral sapagkat ang pagtanggap kay Cristo ay pagtanggap sa aral. Kaya natanggap ang aral ay sinampalatayanan. Kaya sinampalatayanan ay napakinggan sa mangangaral na may karapatan. Ang karapatan ng pagtanggap ay yung nabautismuhan (Marcos 16:15-16) At sinasabi niya: “At sinabi niya sa kanila: Magsiyaon kayo sa buong sanlibutan at inyong ipangaral ang ebanghelyo sa lahat ng kinapal. Ang sumasampalataya at mabautismuhan ay maliligtas datapwa’t ang hindi sumasampalataya ay parurusahan.”
Ang Dating Daan Magazine, Issue date: January 1993, page 7:
Higit sa lahat, dapat nating isaalang-alang na ang isang napagpahayagan na at sumasampalataya na ay dapat makatanggap ng bautismo sang-ayon sa Marcos 16:15-16 na ganito ang sinasabi: “At sinabi niya sa kanila: Magsiyaon kayo sa buong sanlibutan at inyong ipangaral ang ebanghelyo sa lahat ng kinapal. Ang sumasampalataya at mabautismuhan ay maliligtas datapwa’t ang hindi sumasampalataya ay parurusahan.”
Maliwanag kung gayon na ang sumasampalataya na maliligtas ay yaong dumaan sa bautismo at ang bautismong tinutukoy dito ay ang bautismo na itinuro ng ating Panginoong Jesus.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 05, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Further proof that the Vatican is a dying institution ran by old, senile men kicking and screaming themselves into irrelevancy.
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 05, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Vatican denounces nun who writes a book theologically supporting same sex marriage. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/sister-margaret-farley-denounced-by-vatican.html?_r=1)
Further proof that the Vatican is a dying institution ran by old, senile men kicking and screaming themselves into irrelevancy.
I am currently reading Dawkins' God Delusion ebook and when you read it in the context of what's happening in the world's religions nowadays, I can't help but think Dawkins has a point. lol
Post by: barrister on Jun 05, 2012 at 02:28 PM
I really cannot remember exactly sa dami ng napanood kong iba-ibang religious programs pero unti unti may naaalala akong detalye.
sa natatandaan ko na ngayon may nagtanong pala kay Bro. Eli patungkol sa nilalaman ng Marcos 16:15-16 patungkol sa ginagawa yata ng mga Jehova's Witnesses at Mormons na naglalakad at nangangaral sa kung saan-saan na ang sagot pala niya ay hindi naman daw para sa kanila yun dahil dagdag nga daw ang talatang yun sa Biblia,
saka ko pala napanood na may revelation ang INK or Fourth Watch and I really looked for it and it so happened na sa magazine pala nila na "Ang Dating Daan" ginagamit na batayan ni Bro. Eli ang said verses na in other times ay ayaw nyang tanggapin dahil dagdag nga lang daw.
quoted from the mag;
Ang Dating Daan Magazine, issue date: February 1989, page 10:
“Yon ang kaganapan noong pagiging tunay na Born Again. Dumaan sa pagtanggap ng aral sapagkat ang pagtanggap kay Cristo ay pagtanggap sa aral. Kaya natanggap ang aral ay sinampalatayanan. Kaya sinampalatayanan ay napakinggan sa mangangaral na may karapatan. Ang karapatan ng pagtanggap ay yung nabautismuhan (Marcos 16:15-16) At sinasabi niya: “At sinabi niya sa kanila: Magsiyaon kayo sa buong sanlibutan at inyong ipangaral ang ebanghelyo sa lahat ng kinapal. Ang sumasampalataya at mabautismuhan ay maliligtas datapwa’t ang hindi sumasampalataya ay parurusahan.”
Ang Dating Daan Magazine, Issue date: January 1993, page 7:
Higit sa lahat, dapat nating isaalang-alang na ang isang napagpahayagan na at sumasampalataya na ay dapat makatanggap ng bautismo sang-ayon sa Marcos 16:15-16 na ganito ang sinasabi: “At sinabi niya sa kanila: Magsiyaon kayo sa buong sanlibutan at inyong ipangaral ang ebanghelyo sa lahat ng kinapal. Ang sumasampalataya at mabautismuhan ay maliligtas datapwa’t ang hindi sumasampalataya ay parurusahan.”
Maliwanag kung gayon na ang sumasampalataya na maliligtas ay yaong dumaan sa bautismo at ang bautismong tinutukoy dito ay ang bautismo na itinuro ng ating Panginoong Jesus.
Thanks for the info. Ngayon ko lang nalaman na may publication din pala sila.
Kung ganon, may magazine writer lang na pumalpak, isama na rin natin ang editor nila, pero malabong kay Eli Soriano mismo nanggaling yan. Simpleng simple kasi yon, kahit ako nga lang, hindi siguro ako magkakamali sa ganong kasimpleng principle... ;)
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 05, 2012 at 02:42 PM
Thanks for the info. Ngayon ko lang nalaman na may publication din pala sila.
Kung ganon, may magazine writer lang na pumalpak, isama na rin natin ang editor nila, pero malabong kay Eli Soriano mismo nanggaling yan. Simpleng simple kasi yon, kahit ako nga lang, hindi siguro ako magkakamali sa ganong kasimpleng principle... ;)
I guess you're right unless Bro Eli wrote the article himself which I can't verify,
Or maybe he used to believed in such and then discovered later the fact that those verses are "additions" and stopped using them
Post by: barrister on Jun 05, 2012 at 03:02 PM
Kasi noong 1980s pa lang, noong first time kong napanood sa channel 13 si Soriano, mahusay na talaga sa bibliya. Ang payat pa nga niya noon, at ang laki ng eyeglasses ... :D
At the time, sa The Plain Truth Magazine ng Worldwide Church of God ni Armstrong pa lang ako nakakakuha ng biblical principles. I found out later na halos puro Adventist doctrines lang pala ang basis ng mga aral ni Armstrong. Kasama sa doktrina nila ang sobrang pagsunod sa Old Testament, especially the belief in strict Sabbath-keeping. Kaya nga bilib na bilib ako kay Soriano nang mapanood ko.
Noong 1970s naman, nasa radio program siya ni Don Manolo Favis sa DZBB, kasama ang isang panel ng mga ministro ng iba-ibang sekta. Matindi ang mga argumento doon. Minsan nga, batuhan pa ng bibliya ... :D Pero hindi ko pa masyadong naiintindihan ang mga debate nila, bata pa kasi ako noong panahong yon e.
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 05, 2012 at 03:56 PM
Siyempre naman, there was surely a time when Soriano was not yet aware about the insertions in Mark 16. But I think that was when he was much younger, and before he had a TV program.
Kasi noong 1980s pa lang, noong first time kong napanood sa channel 13 si Soriano, mahusay na talaga sa bibliya. Ang payat pa nga niya noon, at ang laki ng eyeglasses ... :D
At the time, sa The Plain Truth Magazine ng Worldwide Church of God ni Armstrong pa lang ako nakakakuha ng biblical principles. I found out later na halos puro Adventist doctrines lang pala ang basis ng mga aral ni Armstrong. Kasama sa doktrina nila ang sobrang pagsunod sa Old Testament, especially the belief in strict Sabbath-keeping. Kaya nga bilib na bilib ako kay Soriano nang mapanood ko.
Noong 1970s naman, nasa radio program siya ni Don Manolo Favis sa DZBB, kasama ang isang panel ng mga ministro ng iba-ibang sekta. Matindi ang mga argumento doon. Minsan nga, batuhan pa ng bibliya ... :D Pero hindi ko pa masyadong naiintindihan ang mga debate nila, bata pa kasi ako noong panahong yon e.
Natawa ako sa "batuhan ng bibliya" part hahahahahaha
Speaking of Bro Eli? nasa Pinas na ba siya ulit?
Post by: barrister on Jun 05, 2012 at 04:50 PM
Hindi na siguro makakauwi yon. Mabigat ang kaso niya rito sa Pinas. May 2 counts of rape na naka pending sa Pampanga RTC. Complainant is Daniel Veridiano (yes, he's male), former Ang Dating Daan production staff.
Soriano's defense is that the charge is false, and that Veridiano made up the story to retaliate for his prior expulsion for misappropriation of funds of the Ang Dating Daan. Unofficially, the members are saying that Veridiano is an INC stooge who filed the false charges under INC instructions.
The case was filed in 2006 in Macabebe, Pampanga. Soriano posted a P240,000 bail in Manila in 2008. Tapos nagtago sa US. Nasa US pa rin hanggang ngayon.
Ironically, it was Soriano's friend Don Manolo Favis who first alleged publicly (on his radio program) that Soriano was gay, after the two had a falling-out sometime in the late 1990s. Soriano and Favis reconciled after about a year. In the early 2000's, the gay issue was revived by the INC over their Ang Tamang Daan TV program.
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 05, 2012 at 04:55 PM
AFAIK, nasa US pa rin.
Hindi na siguro makakauwi yon. Mabigat ang kaso niya rito sa Pinas. May 2 counts of rape na naka pending sa Pampanga RTC. Complainant is Daniel Veridiano (yes, he's male), former Ang Dating Daan production staff.
Soriano's defense is that the charge is false, and that Veridiano made up the story to retaliate for his prior expulsion for misappropriation of funds of the Ang Dating Daan. Unofficially, the members are saying that Veridiano is an INC stooge who filed the false charges under INC instructions.
is Bro Eli confirmed gay?
Post by: barrister on Jun 05, 2012 at 05:02 PM
Alleged lang by his enemies.
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 05, 2012 at 05:09 PM
No, not confirmed.
Alleged lang by his enemies.
I heard Willie Santiago has his own group now.
Willie Santiago is a schoolmate of mine in high school. IN fact he was a CAT officer then and mukhang hindi pa siya interesado nun sa bibliya. nagulat na lang ako nung nakita ko siya sa TV after many years.
Post by: barrister on Jun 05, 2012 at 06:03 PM
May schoolmate ka palang celebrity sir... ;) Matindi rin sa bibliya yang si Willie :o.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 05, 2012 at 09:35 PM
AFAIK, nasa US pa rin.
Ang question, as a leader of a religious group, should he go back here in P.I. and face the charges? I think dapat siyang umuwi...
Post by: Quitacet on Jun 06, 2012 at 07:47 AM
Hindi ko alam yon sir. Akala ko kasama pa ri si Willie ni Brod Eli. Research mode muna ako.
May schoolmate ka palang celebrity sir... ;) Matindi rin sa bibliya yang si Willie :o.
I found this (WARNING bias against Soriano ang site): http://www.angelfire.com/lihim/116AlitanWillyDaniel.html
don't know if it's true.
eto naman si Willy speaking: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4icgmmzwwM
eto naman talagang magkaaway na sila:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeOOnOKHeWc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOUctpsc6SE
parang showbiz na yata
Post by: barrister on Jun 06, 2012 at 12:53 PM
AFAIK, nasa US pa rin.
Mali yata ako. According to my google search, baka nasa Brazil daw (unconfirmed). Ang mga google hits ko ay circa 2009 pa. Pero sa youtube, meron Oct 22, 2011 upload, TV program na Portuguese-speaking. Brazil yan, O Caminho Antigo TV program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjjqANMxMXc
Nobody can verify where he is as of now.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 07, 2012 at 04:01 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/UHlEX.jpg)
Post by: barrister on Jun 07, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 07, 2012 at 08:53 PM
Jesus and the Papacy are not related, contrary to popular belief.
I think the Papacy has long strayed from Jesus' original message and intent. They're more like the Pharisees which Jesus railed against. I'd like to hear someone try to say otherwise.
Post by: barrister on Jun 07, 2012 at 09:11 PM
I think the Papacy has long strayed from Jesus' original message and intent. They're more like the Pharisees which Jesus railed against. I'd like to hear someone try to say otherwise.
If you say the Papacy has strayed from Jesus' original message, you imply that the Papacy started out OK, but later turned bad.
What I'm saying is that the Papacy was bad from the very beginning.
So let me state it clearly --- the Pope is not the successor of Jesus Christ, contrary to popular belief. Peter was not the first Pope. The Pope and Jesus are not connected, and one has nothing to do with the other.
I've probably heard all the arguments to the contrary, and they're pretty easy to disprove.
Post by: sharkey360 on Jun 13, 2012 at 09:17 AM
Post by: barrister on Jun 13, 2012 at 09:18 AM
Pastor Jeric Soriano of NLCC, Pacquiao's spiritual adviser
Ito pala ang sekta ni Manny Pacquiao ngayon --- New Life Christian Center ("NLCC" or "New Life"), founded in 1991 in Alabang by US missionaries Pastor Paul Chase and his wife Shoddy.
Masyadong pangahas ang sektang ito. Biro mo, ginagawang leader ng bible study si Pacquiao, samantalang wala namang kaalam-alam sa bibliya yon. Ano sasabihin non, inutusan daw tayo ng Diyos na magpakarami? ::) Kung sabagay, kahit naman siguro yung pastor niya, wala ring alam sa bibliya ;).
Example ng mga banat ni Manny:
Mr Pacquiao, who was elected to the Filipino parliament last year, has sided with the local Church against a new government bill to introduce free contraception and information about safe sex.
“God said go forth and multiply,” he said, after a meeting with the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. “He did not say go and have just one or two children.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/manny-pacquiao/8521115/Manny-Pacquiao-opposes-birth-control-in-the-Philippines.html
Pero biblib ako sa Pastor ni Manny. Pastor Jeric, magkano ang abuloy sa NLCC ni Manny na ikapu (10% or tithe) ng latest prize money niya? Magkano naman ang ikapu ng PPV share? :o
Post by: thebat on Jun 13, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Baka ngayon lang nabasa ni Manny ang bible kaya napaka naive din ng interpretation nya.
I call for him to quite boxing. He will not be focused on boxing as long as he is too focused on his bible studies.
Post by: barrister on Jun 13, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Baka ngayon lang nabasa ni Manny ang bible kaya napaka naive din ng interpretation nya.
Siguradong nakuha lang ni Manny yon sa turo ng pastor.
Wala pang alam sa bibliya ang katulad ni Manny. Hindi dapat namumuno ng bible study.
"Go forth and multiply" daw, samantalang hindi naman ganon ang nakasulat. Ang tama ay "Be fruitful and increase in number." Simpleng simple, hindi pa masabi nang tama. Sitas pa lang, mintis na. Interpretation pa kaya ang tumama?
Ok lang naman ang magkamali. Pero iba ang situation dito, kasi nangangahas magturo si Manny sa bible study. In fairness, siguro ang dapat sisihin ay yung pastor. Pastor Jeric, magkano ikapu ni Manny?
Post by: sharkey360 on Jun 14, 2012 at 05:40 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/599038_480809455278273_332396352_n.jpg)
Post by: bananabond on Jun 17, 2012 at 06:23 PM
Siyempre naman, there was surely a time when Soriano was not yet aware about the insertions in Mark 16. But I think that was when he was much younger, and before he had a TV program.
Kasi noong 1980s pa lang, noong first time kong napanood sa channel 13 si Soriano, mahusay na talaga sa bibliya. Ang payat pa nga niya noon, at ang laki ng eyeglasses ... :D
At the time, sa The Plain Truth Magazine ng Worldwide Church of God ni Armstrong pa lang ako nakakakuha ng biblical principles. I found out later na halos puro Adventist doctrines lang pala ang basis ng mga aral ni Armstrong. Kasama sa doktrina nila ang sobrang pagsunod sa Old Testament, especially the belief in strict Sabbath-keeping. Kaya nga bilib na bilib ako kay Soriano nang mapanood ko.
Noong 1970s naman, nasa radio program siya ni Don Manolo Favis sa DZBB, kasama ang isang panel ng mga ministro ng iba-ibang sekta. Matindi ang mga argumento doon. Minsan nga, batuhan pa ng bibliya ... :D Pero hindi ko pa masyadong naiintindihan ang mga debate nila, bata pa kasi ako noong panahong yon e.
sir barrister i have an officemate na church of god or dating daan and hindi ko ma take yung mga restrictions ng religion nila like:
1. bawal magpagupit ang mga babae
2. bawal mag pantalon ang babae
3. bawal mag hikaw at alahas ang mga babae and lalaki
4. bawal manuod ng sine (pero nag d download naman siya ng pirated :))
5. madami din bawal kainin lalo na halal food na mas matinding kasalanan pa daw kesa sa kasalanan ng laman.
whats your take on these?
Post by: barrister on Jun 18, 2012 at 03:00 PM
sir barrister i have an officemate na church of god or dating daan and hindi ko ma take yung mga restrictions ng religion nila like:
1. bawal magpagupit ang mga babae
2. bawal mag pantalon ang babae
3. bawal mag hikaw at alahas ang mga babae and lalaki
4. bawal manuod ng sine (pero nag d download naman siya ng pirated :))
5. madami din bawal kainin lalo na halal food na mas matinding kasalanan pa daw kesa sa kasalanan ng laman.
whats your take on these?
1. bawal magpagupit ang mga babae
I disagree.
Ito ang basis nila:
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. (1 Cor. 11: 4-6; 13-16)
Bawal daw magpagupit ng buhok ang babae.
Ang intindi ko, bawal sa babae ang praying or prophesying with her head uncovered.
Sa verses 13-16, gumamit lang ng analogy --- the nature of things teaches that a woman's long hair is a glory unto her.
Paano kung shoulder-length ang buhok ng babae. "Short hair" na ba yon o long pa rin? Sa akin, long pa rin yon. Pero sa Dating Daan, mag-trim lang from waist-length to chest-length, bawal. Kahit anong trim, kahit 1 inch lang, bawal.
=================================
2. bawal mag pantalon ang babae
I disagree.
Ito ang basis nila:
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)
Bawal daw ba mag pantalon ang babae? Hindi derechong sinabi yon.
Ang bawal, cross-dressing. Yan ang maliwanag sa sitas. Pero pag nag pantalon lang ang babae, cross-dressing na ba agad yon? Hindi ganon ang intindi ko e.
=================================
3. bawal mag hikaw at alahas ang mga babae and lalaki
I agree that jewelry should be discouraged. But I disagree na total ban dapat ang lahat ng klaseng jewelry.
Ito ang basis nila:
9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (1 Tim.2:9-10)
3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. (1 Pet. 3:3)
Parehong sa babae ang dalawang sitas. Wala yatang sitas para sa male jewelry.
Pero kahit sa babae lang, ayon sa sitas, bawal daw ba ang kahit anong jewelry, kahit wedding ring o class ring? O ang sinasabi lang ay mas importante ang panloob na kabanalan kaysa sa panlabas na dekorasyon?
=================================
4. bawal manuod ng sine (pero nag d download naman siya ng pirated :))
Ang alam ko, hindi lahat ng movies ay bawal sa kanila. Hindi ko lang alam kung ano ang movies na OK sa kanila.
Ito ang basis nila:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19-21)
Bawal talaga yung mga kalayawan, tulad ng mga lasingan, shabu sessions, sex shows, etc.
Kasama ba ang lahat ng klaseng movies doon? Hindi naman siguro.
=================================
5. madami din bawal kainin lalo na halal food na mas matinding kasalanan pa daw kesa sa kasalanan ng laman.
Sa Dating Daan, hindi bawal ang mga dating bawal sa Old Testament, kagaya ng baboy, pusit, hipon, etc. May ilang pagkain pa rin na bawal sa Dating Daan, pero konti lang.
Kailangan natin ng introductory study para maintindihan ito.
Sa Kristiyano, nilinis na ni Hesus ang mga pagkain:
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:17-19)
Pero may exceptions pa rin. May tatlong bagay na bawal pa ring kainin ng Kristiyano, isa na rito ang pagkaing inalay sa diyos-diyosan:
20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Acts 15:20)
29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:29)
25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 21:25)
Ang paniniwala ng Dating Daan, ang pagkain na may halal mark ay nangangahulugan na ang pagkaing iyon ay inalay sa ibang diyos.
Sa Arabic, "Halal" (permissible) ay puwede; "Haraam" (forbidden) ay bawal. Sa Islam, may mga pagkain na haraam sa kanila. Para malaman agad ng devout Muslims kung lawful to eat ang grocery items, may mga food products na may halal mark.
Ang tanong, inalay nga ba sa ibang diyos ang pagkaing may halal mark?
Personally, gray area yan. Sa Islam kasi, slaughter of permitted animals has two requirements not found in Christianity: (a) The animal's head should be aligned with the Qiblah; (b) The animal should be slaughtered in the name of Allah. Depende sa regional practice, may mga mataderong Muslim na sumisigaw ng "Allah Akbar" bago patayin ang kakataying hayop.
So personally, I would avoid halal-marked meat products to be safe. But I don't see anything wrong with halal foods that are not meat products.
Post by: sharkey360 on Jun 19, 2012 at 08:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3SAC69VFrQ
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM
2. bawal mag pantalon ang babae
I disagree.
Ito ang basis nila:
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. (Deut. 22:5)
Bawal daw ba mag pantalon ang babae? Hindi derechong sinabi yon.
Ang bawal, cross-dressing. Yan ang maliwanag sa sitas. Pero pag nag pantalon lang ang babe, cross-dressing na ba agad yon? Hindi ganon ang intindi ko e.
Hindi kaya kasi,100 years ago, if women wear pants, it's cross dressing na? Pero ngayon, acceptable na.
Post by: dpogs on Jun 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Hindi kaya kasi,100 years ago, if women wear pants, it's cross dressing na? Pero ngayon, acceptable na.
that maybe the case...
kailan lang ba nauso ang pants o naimbento ang pants?
pinaka lesson dito ay ang motive why you wear that kind of dress (pangbabae man o pang lalake o unisex) ....modesty ba o show off... meron ding mga skirts (long skirts) na halos kita mo na rin ang kaluluwa ng nagsusuot....
Post by: barrister on Jun 19, 2012 at 01:08 PM
Hindi kaya kasi,100 years ago, if women wear pants, it's cross dressing na? Pero ngayon, acceptable na.
You got the idea. It depends on culture and time period.
Kung 1912 ngayon, ok lang na ipagbawal ng Dating Daan ang women's pants. Pero bakit ipinagbabawal yon sa kanila ngayong 2012?
That verse in the book of Deuteronomy was written in 1400 BC. Of course it can't mention pants, which became popular only in the early 1500s AD. Women's pants became acceptable in the West in the 1960s.
That's why the verse does not mention specific types of clothing, and instead merely states a prohibition against cross-dressing. The decision to consider specific types of clothing as cross-dressing is up to us. That will depend on culture and time period. Kaya nga ang sabi sa sitas, "ang babae ay huwag mananamit ng nauukol sa lalake;" hindi sinabing "ang babae ang huwag magpapantalon." :D
For example --- Let's say the premise is bawal mag palda ang lalaki, kasi cross-dressing. Masasabi mo bang cross-dressing ito:
(http://caesarcostumes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Julius-Caesar-Costume-300x300.jpg) (http://caesarcostumes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/61161.jpg)
(http://www.kiltmen.com/greatkilt.jpg)
Of course not.
In the same manner, hindi mo puwedeng sabihin na nagpantalon lang ang babae, automatically cross-dressing na.
Post by: bananabond on Jun 19, 2012 at 07:22 PM
Bawal talaga yung mga kalayawan, tulad ng mga lasingan, shabu sessions, sex shows, etc.
Kasama ba ang lahat ng klaseng movies doon? Hindi naman siguro.
Lahat daw ng sine bawal sir. Its not the content but the venue. Pag sa picc daw or sa meralco theater or the likes pwede, pero sa regular movie theater bawal kasi daw may mga kasalanan daw na nangyayari dun. Baka mga sine sa quiapo yun..... Was amazed at this reasoning.....
Post by: barrister on Jun 19, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Lahat daw ng sine bawal sir. Its not the content but the venue. Pag sa picc daw or sa meralco theater or the likes pwede, pero sa regular movie theater bawal kasi daw may mga kasalanan daw na nangyayari dun. Baka mga sine sa quiapo yun..... Was amazed at this reasoning.....
Ngayon ko lang narinig yan, pero tama yata ang info mo sir.
Nag search ako sa mga forum. May nagsasabing kalayawan ang bawal, pero mas maraming nagsasabing yung venue nga ang bawal, kasi raw may kasamaan sa loob ng sinehan.
Masyado namang outdated ang notion na yon. Noong araw na ang mga sinehan ay mura, malaki at madilim, may mga magic talagang nagyayari. Sa laki nga ng mga sine noon, tatlo pa ang sections: orchestra, lodge and balcony. Ngayon, ang mga sinehan sa mall ay mahal, maliit at maliwanag, kaya hindi na uso ang mga ganon sa sine ng malls ngayon.
Nagtataka naman ako, kahit sa sine sa SM, bawal.
Ewan ko sa kanila. Ang pinagmamalaki nila sa TV, bibliya lang ang basis nila, pero sa actual practice sa members, malalayo pala ang pinapatupad na interpretation.
Post by: dpogs on Jun 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal. 5:19-21
Bawal talaga yung mga kalayawan, tulad ng mga lasingan, shabu sessions, sex shows, etc.
Kasama ba ang lahat ng klaseng movies doon? Hindi naman siguro.
Lahat daw ng sine bawal sir. Its not the content but the venue. Pag sa picc daw or sa meralco theater or the likes pwede, pero sa regular movie theater bawal kasi daw may mga kasalanan daw na nangyayari dun. Baka mga sine sa quiapo yun..... Was amazed at this reasoning.....
this is the reasoning of conservative Baptists.
Post by: indie boi on Jun 20, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Joke lang.
Post by: barrister on Jun 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM
However, the main reason as far as I know is not because of the venue, but because of the content.
Example: (Zion Baptist Church)
You Shouldn't Attend a Movie Theater...and here's why
... First is the absolute lack of content control. The difference between watching a movie at home vs. the theater is a matter of content control. I need not to explain much here because it is quite obvious that if you are in a theater you will be exposed to whatever flashes on the big screen regardless of what you came there to see. ...
Second is the toleration of or even acceptance/endorsement of many lies and anti-God philosophy.
http://www.hardecker.com/2012/06/you-shouldnt-attend-movie-theaterand.html
Post by: sharkey360 on Jun 24, 2012 at 07:21 AM
(http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/large_lightbox/hash/04/7d/1340484711_1444_Lynn.jpg)
William J. Lynn is 61-years-old and a former Monsignor of the Philadelphia Archdiocese, and he has been convicted of child endangerment and now faces up to seven years in prison. He is one of the first high level Catholic church officials to be found guilty, as it relates to sexual abuse, in the history of The United States.
The former monsignor's job description included overseeing a church that had over 1.5 million members, while being in charge of 800 priests and investigating them. Because he failed to investigate properly, there was no other person to investigate Lynn's poor investigations between 1992 - 2004.
Lynn was convinced of covering-up the villainous behavior of accused pedophile priests for decades. In 1994 Lynn had compiled a list of 37 priests in the local archdiocese who were either confirmed, or suspected pedophiles with evidence.
The linchpin of this case for the prosecution boiled down to proving that William Lynn, by his actions, had put more children into harm's way by attempting to protect the interests of the church rather than of children. He also faced other charges of conspiracy, but was acquitted.
An odd aspect of this case was the co-defendant, Rev. James J. Brennan, who was accused and acquitted of charges of rape and child endangerment. There was a deadlocked jury on the charges relating to the reverend, so the judge declared a mistrial. It is still possible, however, for the prosecution to re-indict Brennan again. They have not said what they plan to do moving forward.
Curiously, it is not disputed that William J. Lynn is not a pedophile. He was never accused of inappropriately touching children in anyway, but rather he is facing prison time now for facilitating their abuse. It is a crime that some say is equally as despicable as the abuse itself -- to know a child is suffering under such torments only to look away and shuffle paperwork.
Now justice has found William Lynn, and hopefully it will also find the despicable heartless priests who were indeed behind the original abuse.
http://www.examiner.com/article/high-level-catholic-church-official-guilty-of-pedophilia-cover-up
Post by: RU9 on Jun 24, 2012 at 09:02 PM
by Jess Lorenzo
Posted at 06/23/2012 8:40 PM | Updated as of 06/23/2012 8:40 PM
For more than a thousand years, the Roman Catholic Church was the only official Christian church. A little over 500 years ago, the Roman Catholic church was splintered by the reformation that a German monk began by attacking corruption in the institution. At that time, the church held the monopoly of bible knowledge. Priests and church officials who spoke and read Latin were the only ones authorized to interpret God’s law and will for the people. This knowledge perpetuated the corruption. At some point in our Christian history, the bishops and cardinals were selling indulgences that serve as the means to salvation or entry to heaven. By buying these indulgences, individuals get a number of years reprieve from purgatory. These were widely accepted practices which the Pope even accepted.
Church Accountability: Is it a myth?
by Jess Lorenzo
Posted at 06/23/2012 8:40 PM | Updated as of 06/23/2012 8:40 PM
For more than a thousand years, the Roman Catholic Church was the only official Christian church. A little over 500 years ago, the Roman Catholic church was splintered by the reformation that a German monk began by attacking corruption in the institution. At that time, the church held the monopoly of bible knowledge. Priests and church officials who spoke and read Latin were the only ones authorized to interpret God’s law and will for the people. This knowledge perpetuated the corruption. At some point in our Christian history, the bishops and cardinals were selling indulgences that serve as the means to salvation or entry to heaven. By buying these indulgences, individuals get a number of years reprieve from purgatory. These were widely accepted practices which the Pope even accepted.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/blogs/insights/06/23/12/church-accountability-it-myth
Post by: barrister on Jun 25, 2012 at 01:28 PM
Pero biblib ako sa Pastor ni Manny. Pastor Jeric, magkano ang abuloy sa NLCC ni Manny na ikapu (10% or tithe) ng latest prize money niya? Magkano naman ang ikapu ng PPV share? :o
Marami pang interesado ... :D
Pastors swarming Pacquiao for money
Cebu Daily News
8:43 am | Monday, June 25th, 2012
GENERAL SANTOS CITY — Protestant pastors have been coming in droves to Manny Pacquiao’s mansion here. And their number is increasing each day.
One day, seven of them coming from different religious factions arrived. The next day, the number rose to 10. They take a bath, sleep and eat right there as if it is their own house.
... The source said that one pastor was given an I-Pad but seemingly not contented with what he got, he still asked for a new service vehicle. “Now, he is sporting brand new pick-up, courtesy of Manny Pacquiao,” the source added.
Another pastor asked for cash, while the other abandoned his flock somewhere in Northern Luzon just to be with the boxer-lawmaker.
... Before, he said, the distractions in Pacquiao’s life were his gambling and drinking buddies. “Now, the distractions are the pastors and they are far more costly than the previous ones.”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/218249/pastors-swarming-pacquiao-for-money
Post by: tigkal on Jun 25, 2012 at 03:11 PM
Post by: sharkey360 on Jun 27, 2012 at 08:28 PM
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/662665/thumbs/s-JACK-WU-large.jpg)
Jack Wu
According to AP, Wu also advocates a literal interpretation of the Bible and believes the world is 6,000 years old. The US Geological Survey puts the number at closer to 4.5 billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/westboro-jack-wu_n_1628006.html
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 28, 2012 at 07:27 AM
That is the power of money in filipino culture. If you want to destroy something , put money up front in between. Friendship, values, principles flies out of the window.
And/or, tirahin mo ang pride ng isang tao to induce anger.
Post by: BusyChild on Jun 28, 2012 at 07:38 AM
Pastors swarming Pacquiao for money
Cebu Daily News
8:43 am | Monday, June 25th, 2012
GENERAL SANTOS CITY — Protestant pastors have been coming in droves to Manny Pacquiao’s mansion here. And their number is increasing each day.
One day, seven of them coming from different religious factions arrived. The next day, the number rose to 10. They take a bath, sleep and eat right there as if it is their own house.
... The source said that one pastor was given an I-Pad but seemingly not contented with what he got, he still asked for a new service vehicle. “Now, he is sporting brand new pick-up, courtesy of Manny Pacquiao,” the source added.
Another pastor asked for cash, while the other abandoned his flock somewhere in Northern Luzon just to be with the boxer-lawmaker.
... Before, he said, the distractions in Pacquiao’s life were his gambling and drinking buddies. “Now, the distractions are the pastors and they are far more costly than the previous ones.”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/218249/pastors-swarming-pacquiao-for-money
Tsk tsk....... Poor Manny.... :P
Post by: sharkey360 on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Tsk tsk....... Poor Manny.... :P
Ang dami kasing money si Manny.
Post by: thebat on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Post by: rusty on Jul 01, 2012 at 05:17 PM
(Reuters) - A group of about 150 Mormons quit their church in a mass resignation ceremony in Salt Lake City on Saturday in a rare display of defiance ending decades of disagreement for some over issues ranging from polygamy to gay marriage.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-utah-mormons-idUSBRE86000N20120701
Post by: ivannn on Jul 02, 2012 at 03:55 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 02, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Who are the Pastors that are confirmed to be swarming Pacquiao?
and their denomination/religion/sect name?
Post by: barrister on Jul 03, 2012 at 08:02 PM
Katie Holmes' Scientology stalking fears
By: Bang Showbiz
Posted: 07/2/2012 3:15 AM |
Katie Holmes is concerned she is being watched by private investigators hired by Scientologists.
... A source told The Sun newspaper: "About three days before the divorce was announced a Mercedes SUV was sitting outside Tom's apartment in Greenwich Village.
"They were sat about a hundred yards from the house - a couple of suspicious-looking characters in sunglasses.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/celebrities/katie-holmes-scientology-stalking-fears-161046435.html
Scientology education row ‘led to Tom Cruise Katie Holmes split’
Insiders claim Holmes filed for divorce
to prevent the Scientology educating her daughter
By Guy Adams
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
Katie Holmes filed for divorce from Tom Cruise in an attempt to prevent her six-year-old daughter being educated at schools with links to the Church of Scientology, multiple sources claimed yesterday, adding to evidence that the controversial faith lies at the centre of the couple's split.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/scientology-education-row-lsquoled-to-tom-cruise-katie-holmes-splitrsquo-16180208.html
Post by: ivannn on Jul 05, 2012 at 12:56 PM
and their denomination/religion/sect name?
yes. =)
Post by: barrister on Jul 09, 2012 at 03:47 PM
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 8 July 2012 21.22 BST
... In what is perhaps a sign of the growing Islamic extremism in the country, Pakistan's only Nobel laureate, who helped develop the theoretical framework that led to the apparent discovery of the subatomic "God particle" last week, is being largely scorned in his homeland because of his religious affiliation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/08/higgs-boson-pakistan-scientist
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jul 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM
And so it begins......
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 14, 2012 at 11:32 AM
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Screen-Shot-2012-07-13-at-8.49.52-PM1.png)
If there was ever a case that proves once and for all why the Bible has never been and should never be the basis for American law, this is it.
Diana and Samuel Franklin are the adoptive parents of a 15 year old girl. And they never should have been allowed to adopt any child whatsoever. Over the last two years, the Franklins have been torturing the girl by locking her up in a chicken coop for days, locking her in a small claustrophobic outhouse, and forcing her to wear a shock collar controlled by a remote. Authorities also found a leather belt that may have been used to beat the girl.
Why did they do this? The Georgia parents allegedly did these horrible things to teach the girl how to do chores correctly; chores such as picking up trash and tending to the yard in extremely hot conditions. And what’s worse, according to a neighbor, the parents allegedly claim they were just following the Bible.
WTVM reports that one neighbor said that,
“Diana Franklin would often punish her daughter for not doing chores and working the “right way.” The neighbor said that Diana Franklin would only feed her daughter bread and water as punishment for days on end. The neighbor says that Diana Franklin told her that she was “doing what the Bible says.”
Diana Franklin faces 12 counts of cruelty to children and 4 counts of false imprisonment, while Samuel Franklin faces 8 counts of cruelty to children and 8 counts of false imprisonment. Weeks before their arrests, the girl was taken into temporary custody by the Department of Family and Child Services.”
More at http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/13/georgia-parents-torture-adopted-daughter-say-they-were-just-following-the-bible/
Post by: barrister on Jul 14, 2012 at 05:20 PM
You call that "Not understanding what the bible says."
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jul 14, 2012 at 07:24 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 14, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jul 14, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Give an example of a verse they use as basis and I'll show you why it's a wrong interpretation.
Often used to justify hatred, discrimination and condemnation of homosexuals:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Rom 1:26-27
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 15, 2012 at 04:26 AM
People have used the Bible to justify all sorts of bad behavior: The Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church have all cited the Bible to justify their hatred.
So true.
Post by: barrister on Jul 15, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Often used to justify hatred, discrimination and condemnation of homosexuals:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Rom 1:26-27
Wrong interpretation: Rom.1:26-27 is about homosexuals.
Correct interpretation: Rom. 1:26-27 is about heterosexuals.
=================================
The 3 "gay" verses of the New Testament:
1. Romans 1:26 & 27 - Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Romans 1:26-27 is not about homosexuality per se, but same-sex acts performed by heterosexuals.
That's why it talks about abandoning "natural relations." If you're gay, then same-sex is the natural thing for you; so if you engage in same-sex acts, you're abandoning nothing . But if you're heterosexual, then opposite-sex is the natural thing for you; so if you switch to same-sex, then you're abandoning what is natural to you.
Therefore, these verses are not about persons who had always been gay since their youth. The context shows that they are those who worshipped false gods, then continued sinking deeper and deeper into sexual depravity. They are about persons who were naturally heterosexual, but gave up their natural sexual orientation for homosexual lust.
What is likely is that Paul was referring to the pagan fertility cults of his time, where sex was an important part of the temple rituals. Notice that the prior verse 25 was talking about idol worship ("They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator..."), then proceeds to verses 26 & 27 to talk about abandoning natural relations.
http://geographer70.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/romans-126-27/
2. 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
On this passage, the term "effeminate" is a translation from the Greek "malakoi;" and the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" is a translation of the Greek "arsenokoitai."
- Malakoi - There is no clear consensus as to how the word should be understood. The New International Version Bible translates it as "male prostitutes". In Matthew, where the word was also used in reference to clothing, it was translated as "soft". But here, it may mean a morally weak person.
- Arsenokoitai - Scholars speculate that this Greek word was coined by Paul, since they can't find any older written work that uses the same word. It's literally translated into "man-beds." The original meaning could be limited to abuse such as same-sex pedophilia, not necessarily referring to homosexuality in general.
https://www.gaykenya.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=245:the-word-arsenokoitai&catid=45:rev-major-kimindu&Itemid=95
3. 1 Timothy 1:9 & 10 - Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine...
Here, the phrase, "them that defile themselves with mankind" is also a translation of the Greek "arsenokoitai."
Post by: sharkey360 on Jul 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/576238_503321939693322_1738495839_n.jpg)
Post by: docelmo on Jul 22, 2012 at 09:16 AM
(http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv150/docelmo/god.jpg)
Post by: dodie on Aug 03, 2012 at 07:34 PM
I am not sure if this is the right thread... ;D
(http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv150/docelmo/god.jpg)
+1
;D ;D ;D ;D
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 04, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 04, 2012 at 06:21 AM
This should settle the religious argument against homosexuality once and for all. (http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.html)
Copy paste ko:
In other words, “The ancient writers . . . were operating without the vaguest conception of what we have learned to call ‘sexual orientation’.”1 (In the rest of this article I shall use the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” strictly for the sake of convenience.)
Pero yun sexual action or relation between the same sex meron. I don't know if you would consider that a part or a requirement for being a homosexual.
Speaking of which, can you please define or give the pre-requisites of a homosexual?
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2012 at 09:20 AM
This should settle the religious argument against homosexuality once and for all. (http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/homosexuality.html)
Don't be naive.
Religious arguments are never settled. It doesn't matter what either side says.
"Once and for all"? ---- Wehhh ... :D
Post by: tigkal on Aug 04, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2012 at 10:19 AM
You're bound to get into a major difference of opinion. When that happens, the other guy will never agree with you, and you will never agree with the other guy.
And you'll be undercutting each other at a very deep level. That's why emotions tend to flare.
The guy who brings up religion actually thinks he can change the other guy's deeply-held beliefs by logical argumentation. He's living in la la land. People kill each other for religion, and he thinks he can change somebody's religious belief in a conversation over the dinner table?
Post by: sharkey360 on Aug 06, 2012 at 08:23 AM
Reyes, arguably the Roman Catholic Church’s most maverick cleric, then questioned the sincerity of the Church leadership in its avowed mission to help the poor and the oppressed.
“Yes the Church has always been on the side of the poor. But how much has this been the case? Can the Church and the other churches also say the opposite then, that they, have not been and will never be on the side of the rich? Doesn’t this also smack of dishonesty if not hypocrisy?” Reyes said.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/243115/running-priest-hits-govt-church-for-using-poor-as-pawn-in-rh-bill-debate
Post by: docelmo on Aug 07, 2012 at 08:49 AM
-Dawkins and Lennox are at the top of their game discussing a wide variety of issues...
http://youtu.be/J0UIbd0eLxw (http://youtu.be/J0UIbd0eLxw)
Post by: barrister on Aug 09, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Genesis 8, 7-12': Netizens link Tuesday's floods -
and Project Noah - to the Bible
By: Tricia Aquino and Karl John Reyes, InterAksyon.com
August 8, 2012 4:44 PM
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/39877/genesis-8-7-12-netizens-link-tuesdays-floods---and-project-noah---to-the-bible
RH bill and this unnamed monsoon
by Jayeel Serrano Cornelio
Posted on 08/08/2012 2:12 PM | Updated 08/08/2012 2:31 PM
While many of our fellow Filipinos this week were trying to salvage whatever was left untouched by an unnamed monsoon, some others kept themselves busy by reading the Bible. It was, however, a curious case of Bible reading. Exhibiting the profound creativity of many Filipinos, my Facebook accommodated a series of updates relating Genesis 8:7-12 to the fact that it was 8/7/12.
http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/10108-rh-bill-and-an-unnamed-monsoon
Post by: rexFi on Aug 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Don't be naive.
Religious arguments are never settled. It doesn't matter what either side says.
"Once and for all"? ---- Wehhh ... :D
I have stopped debating/polemics, not with the debates "outside" our own circle(Evangelical) but internal debates. ;D
Arminianism vs. Calvinism
Other issues are not really that hard to settle. :)
Agree to Disagree.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 10, 2012 at 04:29 PM
I have stopped debating/polemics, not with the debates "outside" our own circle(Evangelical) but internal debates. ;D
Arminianism vs. Calvinism
Other issues are not really that hard to settle. :)
Agree to Disagree.
Nakow. pagka-haba habang usapan yan. Both naman kasi is in the Bible.
Post by: rexFi on Aug 10, 2012 at 04:34 PM
I have stopped debating/polemics, not because of the debates "outside" our own circle (Evangelical) but internal debates. ;D
^ Well nah, one of the Interpretations are wrong, but offcourse that's why there are debates. :D
I'm sure yung iba nahihiya lang bumaligtad, pero desisyon na nila yon, Christian(Evangelical) ka parin naman either/or belief eh. hehe
Post by: RU9 on Aug 10, 2012 at 08:19 PM
Post by: leomarley on Aug 10, 2012 at 10:32 PM
(http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/5/30/1936118/geography.jpg)
+1
Post by: tigkal on Aug 13, 2012 at 07:22 AM
1. So that we go to Heaven
2. So we will not go to Hell
3. Because he is God.
The reason should be because he is God. I thought priests should preach the same.. What is your reason?
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 13, 2012 at 09:58 AM
(http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/5/30/1936118/geography.jpg)
Lahat naman talaga ipinanganak na atheist e. saka lang nagkakaroon ng concept ng God after maturuan.
Post by: rexFi on Aug 13, 2012 at 10:18 AM
Attended mass yesterday. The priest said that the only reason why we should believe in God is the promise of everlasting life. Is that really the reason? Years back, a priest also said that there are 3 reasons why we believe in God.
1. So that we go to Heaven
2. So we will not go to Hell
3. Because he is God.
The reason should be because he is God. I thought priests should preach the same.. What is your reason?
I agree, for me in addition would be:
1. Creation
2. History/Historical Data - and correct interpretation with proper "philosophical" Framework and some science(?). E.g. Philosophy of Science.
Ayos din ito pang disprove ng other "religions". e.g. Islam.
3. Transcendental Proof/Apologetics - parang sa Historical narin, refer to my item #2. Add narin natin Math. :)
4. Personal Experience - got hooked with the New Testament given to me by Gideon Int' nung elementary ako sa Lutheran School. John 6:44, and the 5 Spiritual Laws (and their supporting verses)
5. Source of Morals etc - The mantra "All have sinned" should have a positive "effect" on all people imho. :) <- Which is the 1st Spiritual Law hehe.
^ I think mine is covered. ^_^
Post by: rusty on Aug 23, 2012 at 02:26 AM
Spanish fresco restoration botched by amateur
Ecce Homo (Behold the Man) by Elias Garcia Martinez has held pride of place in the Sanctuary of Mercy Church near Zaragoza for more than 100 years.
The woman took her brush to it after years of deterioration due to moisture.
Cultural officials said she had the best intentions and hoped it could be properly restored.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921
Post by: barrister on Aug 23, 2012 at 08:30 AM
Attended mass yesterday. The priest said that the only reason why we should believe in God is the promise of everlasting life. Is that really the reason? Years back, a priest also said that there are 3 reasons why we believe in God.
1. So that we go to Heaven
2. So we will not go to Hell
3. Because he is God.
The reason should be because he is God. I thought priests should preach the same.. What is your reason?
If I don't believe in God, I should believe in God because He is God. Well that doesn't even make sense. How can "because He is God" apply to me if I don't believe in God?
That's a fallacy in logic called "Circular Reasoning." Your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of your starting point. This is proof by assertion, or "begging the question." You used a conclusion of an argument as a premise to that same argument.
The same with the other reasons.
If I don't believe in God, then I also don't believe in the existence of heaven or hell.
Now the priest says I should believe in God so that I will go to heaven and not to hell. Nothing but "Petitio Principii" (assuming the initial point). Kung ang starting point ko ay hindi ako naniniwala sa heaven or hell, unulit lang niya yung starting point ko.
Post by: tigkal on Aug 23, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 23, 2012 at 02:50 PM
Seldom is the reason because he is God daw.
Yet you yourself say that that the reason "should be": We should believe in God because He is God. And that you also think priests "should preach" that we should believe in God because He is God:
The reason should be because he is God. I thought priests should preach the same..
Post by: rexFi on Aug 23, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Nothing circular about it.
*although I had list down my other reasons though with my past post hehe
*refer to reason number 3 I guess. :D
Post by: barrister on Aug 23, 2012 at 03:28 PM
Yeh, for example seldom din na kelangan reason, why 1 + 1 = 2?
Paano namang naging example yon?
"1 + 1 = 2" is a provable fact and is so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
The existence of God is neither a provable fact nor non-controversial.
Malayo iyon sir.
Post by: rexFi on Aug 23, 2012 at 03:55 PM
Believe it or not, I experienced debating 1 + 1 = 2 to some guy who's belief, well he doesn't want his belief to be labeled LOL those were the days. ^_^
could be a new ager.
anyway yeah discuss lang :D
Post by: barrister on Aug 23, 2012 at 06:17 PM
Its not a controversy to a "decided" person though, so its the same to us. :)
Yes, I know it's not controversial to you. But that's not what "controversial" means. "Controversial" means it is controversial to the group composed of reasonable persons.
Is the existence of God controversial to the group of all reasonable persons in the world? Yes. Some reasonable persons believe in God, other reasonable persons don't.
Is "1 + 1 = 2" controversial to the group of all reasonable persons in the world? No. However, it can be controversial to a special group of loonies who believe the answer should be "3" ... :D But even if it's controversial to the loonies, "1 + 1 = 2" still remains non-controversial, and still remains a provable fact. Malayong-malayo pa rin sa belief in the existence of God.
A reason to believe in God would only be relevant to the non-believer. Why would you need a reason to believe in God if you already believe in God?
So if the reason would only be relevant to a non-beliver, let's use that reason in trying to convince the atheist. "You should believe in God because He is God," sabi mo sa atheist. Hindi pa rin circular reasoning yon para sa iyo? Wala na kong magagawa sa yo sir... :D
================================
I have a feeling that we're not on the same page. Did you think I was an atheist? You will notice that I capitalize "G" when I write "God."
I believe in God, and I've been studying the bible for more than 30 years. But it is my view that belief in God comes from faith, and that His existence cannot be proved by science or logic.
Pansinin mo yung logic mo sir, umiikot lang at laging bumabalik sa umpisa ... ;)
Post by: Frankthetank on Aug 25, 2012 at 02:27 PM
But it is my view that belief in God comes from faith, and that His existence cannot be proved by science or logic.
I wish there's a LIKE button here in pdvd.
:)
Post by: Timithekid on Aug 25, 2012 at 06:27 PM
belief in God comes from faith, and that His existence cannot be proved by science or logic.
I had a philosophy professor in college who guy nearly convinced me that there is no God, but after a good exchange with him I somehow lucked into saying my belief that there is a God comes from faith, he immediately cut me off and gave me a smile then told me we have to stop arguing, because in faith, there is no argument.
Post by: tigkal on Aug 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Yes, because if you believe in God to go to heaven and avoid hell, that is simply too selfish for me.You are only thinking about yourself.
Yet you yourself say that that the reason "should be": We should believe in God because He is God. And that you also think priests "should preach" that we should believe in God because He is God:
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 26, 2012 at 12:40 PM
I think the priest only lays down the reasons why you believe in God. If you do not believe in God, then no need for a reason why you do not believe in God, since the priest was only stating the three reasons why you believe in God. Seldom is the reason because he is God daw. Majority are those who want to go to heaven or avoid hell. Almost all religion anchors your faith to some sort of reward in the afterlife. I think there is a sect in Iraq that does not anchor on the rewards/punishment. They just preach values. No talk about heaven or hell. No talk about rewards. Is there a religion here in the Philippines that does that?
I believe kinda ganito din ang Christianity dapat. Kaya nagkakaroon or gumagawa ng good works ang iba, because of the rewards. However, biblically, good works are suppose to be a normal part of our life to those who have faith. Kung baga, automatic.
Post by: ATJr. on Aug 26, 2012 at 01:03 PM
Post by: Movie_Geek_Tom on Aug 26, 2012 at 01:17 PM
I believe in GOD, but my God is different from the God of those whose religions amass wealth, engage in politics and scare you by saying that you are not saved if you don't join their religion....
1 up
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 26, 2012 at 03:31 PM
I believe in GOD, but my God is different from the God of those whose religions amass wealth, engage in politics and scare you by saying that you are not saved if you don't join their religion....
2 up.
Post by: barrister on Aug 26, 2012 at 03:31 PM
Yes, because if you believe in God to go to heaven and avoid hell, that is simply too selfish for me.You are only thinking about yourself.
Sure, but that's not the point.
The point is, it's circular reasoning to say, "man should believe in God because He is God."
Post by: ATJr. on Aug 26, 2012 at 03:51 PM
The teachings of my God is not written on some books.....it is written in the hearts and minds of those who believes and have faith in HIM...
The Law of my God to all of us that believes in him is just one.....Love your neighbors as you love ME....
My God tells me to partake of the worlds riches just enough for my needs....and i never suffered from want because of this...
Post by: barrister on Aug 26, 2012 at 07:44 PM
The teachings of my God is not written on some books.....it is written in the hearts and minds of those who believes and have faith in HIM...
Delikado ang ganon sir, magulo pag hindi nakasulat.
Nakasulat na nga, nagkakagulo pa rin, yun pa kayang hindi nakasulat?
The Law of my God to all of us that believes in him is just one.....Love your neighbors as you love ME....
My God says the law can be summarized in two commandments: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Ang utos ng Diyos ko, mas mataas dapat ang pagmamahal sa Kanya kaysa sa kapwa.
Sa Diyos mo pala, ang pagmamahal sa Kanya at sa kapwa, dapat pantay lang.
Yan ang problema pag hindi nakasulat ang batayan. Kahit kanya-kanyang kapa-kapa at haka-haka lang, puwede na rin... :D
Post by: oweidah on Aug 26, 2012 at 08:22 PM
I believe in GOD, but my God is different from the God of those whose religions amass wealth, engage in politics and scare you by saying that you are not saved if you don't join their religion....
(http://www.emergucate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/7up.jpg)
another god worshipped by many >
(http://forexgreenpips.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/one-hundred-100-dollar-bill.jpg)
Post by: ATJr. on Aug 27, 2012 at 04:32 AM
Delikado ang ganon sir, magulo pag hindi nakasulat.
Nakasulat na nga, nagkakagulo pa rin, yun pa kayang hindi nakasulat?
My God says the law can be summarized in two commandments: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Ang utos ng Diyos ko, mas mataas dapat ang pagmamahal sa Kanya kaysa sa kapwa.
Sa Diyos mo pala, ang pagmamahal sa Kanya at sa kapwa, dapat pantay lang.
if my God was the same God as that of Adolf Hitler or Himler, then 6million Jews would not have died........
Quote
Yan ang problema pag hindi nakasulat ang batayan. Kahit kanya-kanyang kapa-kapa at haka-haka lang, puwede na rin... :D
ang mga aral ng aking Diyos ay nakasulat hindi sa alin mang aklat maliban sa puso at isipan ng mga sumasamba sa aking Diyos.....
My GOD is the Greatest!!!
The teachings of my God is not written on some books.....it is written in the hearts and minds of those who believes and have faith in HIM...
The Law of my God to all of us that believes in him is just one.....Love your neighbors as you love ME....
My God tells me to partake of the worlds riches just enough for my needs....and i never suffered from want because of this...
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 27, 2012 at 06:52 AM
Ang utos ng Diyos ko, mas mataas dapat ang pagmamahal sa Kanya kaysa sa kapwa.
Sa Diyos mo pala, ang pagmamahal sa Kanya at sa kapwa, dapat pantay lang.
Yan ang problema pag hindi nakasulat ang batayan. Kahit kanya-kanyang kapa-kapa at haka-haka lang, puwede na rin... :D
How else do you love God, if not loving thy neighbor, by following His examples?
Post by: indie boi on Aug 27, 2012 at 07:15 AM
My GOD is the Greatest!!!
The teachings of my God is not written on some books.....it is written in the hearts and minds of those who believes and have faith in HIM...
The Law of my God to all of us that believes in him is just one.....Love your neighbors as you love ME....
My God tells me to partake of the worlds riches just enough for my needs....and i never suffered from want because of this...
Give this man a round of applause.
Post by: barrister on Aug 27, 2012 at 07:16 AM
if my God was the same God as that of Adolf Hitler or Himler, then 6million Jews would not have died........
Godwin's Law kicked in really fast on this one... :D
================================
How else do you love God, if not loving thy neighbor, by following His examples?
So the way you understand it, there is no difference between loving God and loving your neighbor.
Jesus Christ said:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (Mt. 10: 34-36)
What did Jesus mean?
Post by: ATJr. on Aug 27, 2012 at 07:23 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 27, 2012 at 08:01 AM
My GOD is the Greatest!!!
The teachings of my God is not written on some books.....it is written in the hearts and minds of those who believes and have faith in HIM...
The Law of my God to all of us that believes in him is just one.....Love your neighbors as you love ME....
My God tells me to partake of the worlds riches just enough for my needs....and i never suffered from want because of this...
Dati ganito din ako mag-isip. but when i started reading the holy bible, nag-iba ang pananaw ko.
Post by: barrister on Aug 27, 2012 at 08:17 AM
Did i say that Jesus is my God?
It was already clear that Jesus is not your God. But that's OK. We are entitled to our own beliefs.
Post by: devlin_waugh on Aug 27, 2012 at 09:11 AM
Post by: ATJr. on Aug 27, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Dati ganito din ako mag-isip. but when i started reading the holy bible, nag-iba ang pananaw ko.
i also read the bible.....i believe in a Supreme Being......I thank my God each time i wake up in the morning and each time i have something to say to him.....as if he doesn't already know, i tell HIM just the same.....
Post by: docelmo on Aug 27, 2012 at 10:10 AM
My GOD is the Greatest!!!
The teachings of my God is not written on some books.....it is written in the hearts and minds of those who believes and have faith in HIM...
The Law of my God to all of us that believes in him is just one.....Love your neighbors as you love ME....
My God tells me to partake of the worlds riches just enough for my needs....and i never suffered from want because of this...
This gave it away that you have a different faith, that's ok we are all entitled to our own beliefs.
I believe in the God of the Bible not only because of faith, but also because of the what He claims to be...I am the Way, The Truth, and the Life......no one goes to the Father except through Me.
I believe He exist because of the existence objective moral values and duties, good and evil, love and hate.
Without the one true GOD........Everything will be permissible!
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 27, 2012 at 10:25 AM
So the way you understand it, there is no difference between loving God and loving your neighbor.
Jesus Christ said:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. (Mt. 10: 34-36)
What did Jesus mean?
His teachings ran counter with some current beliefs/practices of that time. So I guess it's natural that there would be conflicts. Like what's happening to this thread now :) Like what's happening to the world now.
Post by: tigkal on Aug 27, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Sure, but that's not the point.
The point is, it's circular reasoning to say, "man should believe in God because He is God."
Ah because proof of God is not yet established? I sometimes doubt if there is really a God as stated in the bible. But I also have experiences that there really is a God as defined by my experience.
A son believes and obeys his father because he is his father, not because he wants to have something he desires, or something he wants to avoid.This is my point. But we may have different viewpoints.
Post by: indie boi on Aug 27, 2012 at 12:01 PM
;D
Post by: docelmo on Aug 27, 2012 at 04:04 PM
"You should believe in the 'god of the Bible' because the Bible says he's the one true god."
;D
Sir,
In the same manner when you look at say your speakers and it was made by "Bowers & Wilkins" , would you believe now that your speaker is really a B & W ?
I believe because there are More reasons to believe in His existence than the opposing view!
Just to name a few…
The existence of the Universe:
We know it had a beginning, but how? Out of nothing, random chance, spontaneously or by something outside of the universe, eternal, infinitely intelligent....
Which is more plausible....Nothing created everything or Something created everything? (Ops OT na ito)
"Let there be Light" Bible written by non-scientists 3,000 years ago
"The Big bang theory" by scientists less than 100 years ago
Fine tuned Universe
Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Objective Moral values –
Our recognition that evil exists, confirms the existence of God! Because if God did not exist, there would no Good and Evil, No Laws, everything is permissible, no responsibility. no accountability. Without a "Lawgiver" that set the rules, there would be no basis to charge anyone of wrongdoing...
Evolution proves God exists-
Because all we see in evolution is what the Bible says: God created them after their own kind......microevolution! We have yet to see an actual living organism or fossil evidence of "gradual transition" from single-celled organism - invertebrates -vertebrates....missing links are not missing they just don’t exist.
Post by: saintburaki on Aug 28, 2012 at 04:14 AM
it will be more confusing if you believe PROMETHEUS.
kasi dun pnakita na galing pala tayo sa ibang nilalang mula sa ibang planets.
kahit naman ano pinaniniwalaan mo...
mas mahalaga na meron kang pinaniniwalaan kesa sa wala.
Post by: barrister on Aug 28, 2012 at 07:40 AM
OT:
it will be more confusing if you believe PROMETHEUS.
kasi dun pnakita na galing pala tayo sa ibang nilalang mula sa ibang planets.
Marami namang naniniwala na descendant tayo ng aliens.
Manood ka lang ng Ancient Aliens sa cable TV, baka maniwala ka na rin... :D
kahit naman ano pinaniniwalaan mo...
mas mahalaga na meron kang pinaniniwalaan kesa sa wala.
Ewan ko lang sir. Baka hindi mo pa narinig kung gaanong ka weirdo ang ibang paniniwala.
For example, isang grupo na naniniwalang nanggaling tayo sa aliens ay ang "Heaven's Gate," isang California-based UFO religion. Their leader said the Earth was about to be "recycled," so they had to evacuate by committing suicide so that their souls can board a spaceship that was about to pick them up from earth. In 1997, the leader and 38 followers committed mass suicide.
Kahit ano paniwalaan mo, OK lang? Kung minsan, mas mabuti pang wala kang pinapaniwalaan.
Post by: oweidah on Aug 28, 2012 at 09:17 AM
(http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/images/timemag.jpg)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003355,00.html
sa isang area- judaism's wailing wall sa ibaba, temple mount sa itaas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount at via crucis way of the cross sa paligid. pero walang pinagkasunduan haaaay
religion unites or divides? war o peace ? ::)
Post by: ATJr. on Aug 28, 2012 at 09:24 AM
pero siguro boring naman.....but people will always be people.....
Post by: oweidah on Aug 28, 2012 at 09:28 AM
sira-ulo! ang Diyos ko lang ang dapat sambahin!
resulta = giyera ;D
Post by: barrister on Aug 28, 2012 at 09:56 AM
maraming mga tao na sobrang ang dudunong sa mundo......
Agree ako diyan :D
ah basta, ang Diyos ko ang kaisa-isang Diyos! lahat kayo masusunog sa impyerno.
sira-ulo! ang Diyos ko lang ang dapat sambahin!
resulta = giyera ;D
Korek!
if only they obeyed the one commandment of my GOD, those things would not have come to pass.....
Each side is saying the same thing.
Ano resulta? E di giyera nga... :D
Post by: devlin_waugh on Sep 01, 2012 at 07:57 AM
A well-known Catholic priest who hosts a weekly religious television show said in an interview this week that child sex abusers are often seduced by teenage boys and should not go to jail on a first offense
http://abcnews.go.com/US/catholic-priest-rev-benedict-groeschel-defends-child-sex/story?id=17114892#.UEFlGcGUosJ
Post by: RU9 on Sep 02, 2012 at 07:09 AM
Priest apologizes after sex abuse comments draw ire
By Laura Koran, CNN
(CNN) - A prominent Catholic friar has apologized for saying that child victims of sex abuse may at times bear some of the responsibility for the attacks because they can seduce their assailants, and that first-time sex offenders should not receive jail time.
"I did not intend to blame the victim," the Rev. Benedict Groeschel, of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, said Thursday. "A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/31/priest-apologizes-after-sex-abuse-comments-draw-ire/
Post by: ATJr. on Sep 02, 2012 at 07:36 AM
Post by: leomarley on Sep 02, 2012 at 07:41 AM
Priest Defends Sex Abusers
A well-known Catholic priest who hosts a weekly religious television show said in an interview this week that child sex abusers are often seduced by teenage boys and should not go to jail on a first offense
http://abcnews.go.com/US/catholic-priest-rev-benedict-groeschel-defends-child-sex/story?id=17114892#.UEFlGcGUosJ
based ba sa experience yan? ::)
Post by: Timithekid on Sep 02, 2012 at 07:50 AM
priests are people too.....
The same can be said of lawyers, doctors, etc... What i mean is aren't priests supposed to be held in higher regard because they are taught to have more control? To be able to try and resist temptaion more than a lay person?
I would expect that soldiers, when subjected to torture would be able to hold out more compared to an ordinary person...just a thought...
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Sep 02, 2012 at 09:51 AM
priests are people too.....
Yes. Personally, I don't think the percentage of priests molesting children is all that much higher than any other profession but in most other professions, if you get caught, you get arrested. In the Church, unfortunately, they only get transferred and their crimes covered up which only makes it worse. Add to that the fact that priests are supposed to be celibate men of God who, next to your parents, are people you're SUPPOSED to trust, makes it 100x worse.
GC and bass_nut are oddly silent every time this subject comes up.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 02, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Official cover-up of the child molestation --- "Tao lang" pa rin ang katuwiran? >:(
Post by: ATJr. on Sep 02, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 02, 2012 at 11:23 AM
we can not escape our humanity....these priests know that what they do is wrong but they do it anyway.....they are sick.......no justification for wrongdoings, they need to get punished....they need to get help....
Bawal kasing mag-asawa ang priest. Celebacy. But AFAIK, celebacy is a spiritual gift from God. You do not choose it.
Post by: devlin_waugh on Sep 02, 2012 at 11:53 AM
by your logic a priest can break that vow and still engage in worldly acts because it's just a matter of non-acceptance of a "gift"
thus a priest can engage in sex arbitrarily depending on his fidelity to his vow...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 02, 2012 at 12:02 PM
^it's a vow...supposedly stroger than a promise...not too be taken lightly
by your logic a priest can break that vow and still engage in worldly acts because it's just a matter of non-acceptance of a "gift"
thus a priest can engage in sex arbitrarily depending on his fidelity to his vow...
Nope. What i meant was, what is the logic behind the vow. It's not about breaking the vow.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 02, 2012 at 12:43 PM
we can not escape our humanity....these priests know that what they do is wrong but they do it anyway.....they are sick.......no justification for wrongdoings, they need to get punished....they need to get help....
what makes insult a graver injury is that the religious hierarchy seemed not doing anything, and at worst, seems like defending / covering up for the sickness (mental) of the offender of their orders.
But of course, what's new. These occurrences have happened in the past - did they apologized or even admitted that? What do you expect today? Are we so naive?
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2012 at 03:10 PM
.....they are sick.......no justification for wrongdoings, they need to get punished....they need to get help....
How about a cover-up and a transfer to a new parish? ;)
================================
"There is a big conference of Catholic Bishops in Dallas. Well this is great for the city, it brings in about $12 million in hush money." (David Letterman)
"The big Vatican summit wrapped up, closing ceremonies were Harry Connick Jr. The Vatican is taking a tough stand now --- three strikes and you're transferred." (David Letterman)
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Sep 02, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Post by: oweidah on Sep 02, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Priest apologizes after sex abuse comments draw ire
By Laura Koran, CNN
(CNN) - A prominent Catholic friar has apologized for saying that child victims of sex abuse may at times bear some of the responsibility for the attacks because they can seduce their assailants, and that first-time sex offenders should not receive jail time.
"I did not intend to blame the victim," the Rev. Benedict Groeschel, of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, said Thursday. "A priest (or anyone else) who abuses a minor is always wrong and is always responsible."
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/31/priest-apologizes-after-sex-abuse-comments-draw-ire/
nice 'name' of writer :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 02, 2012 at 08:11 PM
sobs as he recounts the horrific abuse - and says he is looking
forward to facing attacker in court
By Lydia Warren
PUBLISHED: 20:48 GMT, 18 June 2012 | UPDATED: 21:00 GMT, 18 June 2012
...Explaining why he pummeled Father Jerold Lindner in May 2010, leaving him with bruises and in need of stitches, Lynch told the San Jose Mercury News: 'I did everything I could do under the law.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161229/Will-Lynch-trial-Man-beat-priest-molesting-seven-recounts-abuse.html
Trial begins for man who beat priest he says molested him
William Lynch is accused of assaulting Father Jerold Lindner
at the priest's retirement home. Lynch says the priest sexually
assaulted him when he was 7.
June 21, 2012|By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times
...More than a dozen men and women have accused Lindner of molesting them through the years — including his sister, nieces and nephew. The Catholic Church has settled three cases brought against him, according to a Jesuit spokesman. But the 67-year-old has never faced charges because the statute of limitations for the alleged abuse had run out.
Now Lynch has been charged with felony assault and elder abuse, facing up to four years in prison. He turned down a plea agreement, he said in an interview as his trial began here Wednesday, because "I realized it was the only way I could get Father Lindner in court and to have an opportunity to possibly find some justice that way."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/21/local/la-me-0621-priest-beating-20120621
Alleged rape victim acquitted in priest assault
Man who alleged priest molested him as a boy is cleared of 2 felonies
Kevin Fagan
Updated 11:08 p.m., Thursday, July 5, 2012
William Lynch never disputed that he had punched a retired Catholic priest in an old folks home in Los Gatos. He said the cleric raped him nearly four decades ago, that he had simply snapped when he demanded an admission of guilt. He didn't expect a jury to overlook the letter of the law and let him go.
But Thursday, in a verdict that drew gasps of astonishment in a San Jose courtroom, the jury said the 44-year-old Lynch was not guilty of felony assault and elder abuse in the 2010 attack on Jerold Lindner, 67.
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Alleged-rape-victim-acquitted-in-priest-assault-3686581.php#ixzz25Jtz1mhq
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 03, 2012 at 02:21 PM
The former archbishop of Milan and papal candidate Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini said the Catholic Church is "200 years out of date" in his final interview before his death, published on Saturday.
Martini, once favored by Vatican progressives to succeed Pope John Paul II and a prominent voice in the church until his death at the age of 85 on Friday, gave a scathing portrayal of a pompous and bureaucratic church failing to move with the times.
"Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous," Martini said in the interview published in Italian daily Corriere della Sera.
"The Church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the pope and the bishops. The pedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation," he said in the interview.
In the last decade the Church has been accused of failing to fully address a series of child abuse scandals which have undermined its status as a moral arbiter, though it has paid many millions in compensation settlements worldwide.
Martini, famous for comments that the use of condoms could be acceptable in some cases, told interviewers the Church should open up to new kinds of families or risk losing its flock.
"A woman is abandoned by her husband and finds a new companion to look after her and her children. A second love succeeds. If this family is discriminated against, not just the mother will be cut off but also her children."
In this way "the Church loses the future generation", Martini said in the interview, made a fortnight before he died. The Vatican opposes divorce and forbids contraception in favor of fidelity within marriage and abstinence without.
A liberal voice in the church, Martini's chances of becoming pope were damaged when he revealed he was suffering from a rare form of Parkinson's disease and he retired in 2002.
Pope John Paul II was instead succeeded in 2005 by Pope Benedict XVI, a hero of Catholic conservatives who is known by such critical epithets as "God's rottweiler" because of his stern stand on theological issues.
Martini's final message to Pope Benedict was to begin a shake up of the Catholic Church without delay.
"The church is 200 years out of date. Why don't we rouse ourselves? Are we afraid?"
Martini was much loved and thousands paid their respects at his coffin in Milan cathedral on Saturday.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/272197/news/world/in-final-interview-cardinal-says-church-200-years-out-of-date
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 03, 2012 at 02:28 PM
Yes. Personally, I don't think the percentage of priests molesting children is all that much higher than any other profession but in most other professions, if you get caught, you get arrested. In the Church, unfortunately, they only get transferred and their crimes covered up which only makes it worse. Add to that the fact that priests are supposed to be celibate men of God who, next to your parents, are people you're SUPPOSED to trust, makes it 100x worse.
GC and bass_nut are oddly silent every time this subject comes up.
Actually, this item has been repeated over and over and both GC and bass_nut have provided more than adequate responses.
Post by: RU9 on Sep 04, 2012 at 09:38 AM
US monsignor imprisoned for covering up child sex abuse
BY DAVE WARNER July 25, 2012 6:59am
PHILADELPHIA - Monsignor William Lynn, the highest-ranking clergyman convicted in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church scandal, was sentenced on Tuesday to up to six years in prison for covering up child sex abuse by priests in Philadelphia.
Judge M. Teresa Sarmina told Lynn, 61, the former secretary of the clergy for the Philadelphia Archdiocese, that he protected "monsters in clerical garb who molested children."
Read more...
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/266628/news/world/us-monsignor-imprisoned-for-covering-up-child-sex-abuse
Post by: devlin_waugh on Sep 04, 2012 at 09:40 AM
(http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/08/blogs/graphic-detail/20120908_woc894.png)
http://www.economist.com/node/21558214?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/dc/devilsinthedeterrent
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 04, 2012 at 01:07 PM
The Devil's in the deterrent
(http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/08/blogs/graphic-detail/20120908_woc894.png)
http://www.economist.com/node/21558214?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/dc/devilsinthedeterrent
"Appears that the authors have manipulated the data to fit their conclusions."
http://www.economist.com/node/21558214?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/dc/devilsinthedeterrent
I thought so too! ;D
Let me guess: they are using different dictionary to define a crime - because they have other laws!
Or PROBABLY they treat crimes differently in those countries - err hide it?
nice-colored graph by the way! ;D
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 04, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 08, 2012 at 10:07 AM
and almost all of them are lies! ;D
Politicians are the ones using those kind of language.
And surprisingly, majority do believe them (see come election day in the Philippines)! :o
So what's new under the sun?
Simple test: Action speaks louder than words!
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 14, 2012 at 08:22 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Sep 14, 2012 at 09:23 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/540021_413568782040186_238400014_n.jpg)
As opposed to Catholicism where they will bitch and whine until it becomes embarrassing.
Post by: leomarley on Sep 15, 2012 at 08:39 AM
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2012 at 08:29 AM
His material highness
Far from his holier-than-all image, the Dalai Lama supports such questionable
causes as India's nuclear testing, sex with prostitutes and accepting donations
from a Japanese terrorist cult.
By Christopher Hitchens
Tuesday, Jul 14, 1998 03:00 AM +0800
(http://skeptoid.com/images/dalai-lama-large.jpg)
http://www.salon.com/1998/07/13/news_79/
Post by: leomarley on Sep 16, 2012 at 09:03 AM
His material highness
Far from his holier-than-all image, the Dalai Lama supports such questionable
causes as India's nuclear testing, sex with prostitutes and accepting donations
from a Japanese terrorist cult.
By Christopher Hitchens
Tuesday, Jul 14, 1998 03:00 AM +0800
(http://skeptoid.com/images/dalai-lama-large.jpg)
http://www.salon.com/1998/07/13/news_79/
from the Wikipedia page of same author of that article, from his book God Is Not Great:
Quote
Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment, which will base itself on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man and woman [referencing Alexander Pope]. This Enlightenment will not need to depend, like its predecessors, on the heroic breakthroughs of a few gifted and exceptionally courageous people. It is within the compass of the average person. The study of literature and poetry, both for its own sake and for the eternal ethical questions with which it deals, can now easily depose the scrutiny of sacred texts that have been found to be corrupt and confected. The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development. Very importantly, the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse. And all this and more is, for the first time in our history, within the reach if not the grasp of everyone.
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 16, 2012 at 09:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-RGN21TSGk
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2012 at 10:25 PM
or just a great Salesman
by Yau-Man Chan, Mar 15 2009
(http://godknowswhat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/good-dl-lens.jpg?w=450)
... Just to set the record straight, I am a very severe critic of the Chinese regime as there are a lot to criticize them for — both my father and mother have lost members of their family to that regime for no other reason than owning enough properties to be considered capitalist dogs during the Cultural Revolution. However, the one-sided reporting of all the goings on in Tibet raise the skeptic ire in me.
... Whether it’s Times, Newsweek, Harpers, New Yorker or National Review, popular magazines in the U.S. all paint a rosy picture of a smiling avuncular Dalai Lama driven from his peaceful Utopian mountain paradise and appealing to the world to help him return. (“Help” usually means “send money.”) It is not until the curious readers get their hands on more academic publications like Foreign Affairs or Asian Journal of Political Science that a more studied picture of the real Tibet can be understood in context with its history, religion and culture. http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/03/15/dalai-lama/
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Brendan O'Neill
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 May 2008 20.00 BST
... The Dalai Lama demands religious freedom. Yet he persecutes a Buddhist sect that worships a deity called Dorje Shugden. He outlawed praying to Dorje Shugden in 1996, and those who defied his writ were thrown out of their jobs, mocked in the streets and even had their homes smashed up by heavy-handed officials from his government-in-exile.
... The Dalai Lama has effectively been turned into a cartoon good guy. In America and western Europe, where backward anti-modern sentiments are widespread amongst self-loathing sections of the educated and the elite, the Dalai Lama has been embraced as a living, breathing representative of unsullied goodness. Despite the fact that he advertises Apple, guest-edits Vogue and drives a Land Rover, he is held up as evidence that living the simple eastern life is preferable to, in the words of Philip Rawson, westerners' "gradually more pointless pursuit of material satisfactions". Just as earlier generations of disillusioned aristocrats fell in love with a fictional version of Tibet (Shangri-La), so contemporary un-progressives idolise a fictional image of the Dalai Lama.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/29/downwiththedalailama
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Trite Is Trite, Even In Robes
Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:37
I'm sure the Dalai Lama is a wise, insightful and altogether wonderful human being. He must be. Everyone says so.
... Nobody plays guru better. No debate there. Wherever he speaks, the atmosphere is electric, and there aren't many septuagenarians who can pack theatres and stadiums worldwide with two hours of extemporaneous talk. But much as I like a little crackle in the air, I can't gush about ancient wisdom made flesh until I hear some substance in the words.
... "The concept of war is outdated," quoth the Lama. To do away with external conflict, we must first change inside. "First inner disarmament, then outer disarmament."
Whoah, as surfer dudes are wont to say.
Then there was this trenchant observation: "We all come from our mother's womb. Therefore we all have the same potential for compassion."
At one point, the Dalai Lama indicated the source of humanity's problems by silently gesturing to his heart.
The audience loved it, as they always do. But I couldn't help but notice that, theatrics aside, these words read like the transcript of three out of five episodes of Oprah.
http://www.dangardner.ca/index.php/articles/item/214-trite-is-trite-even-in-robes
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Dalai Lama: Savior, or Selfish Jerk?
Posted on May 14, 2012 by Brian Dunning
... The Dalai Lama — who has maintained his headquarters in India ever since the 1959 escape from Chinese forces in Tibet — is today basically a fundraiser.
... There’s not a thing wrong with what the Dalai Lama campaigns for, or with his fundraising — and here’s where I want to be clear — so long as he’s honest about how the funds are going to be used. None of the Dalai Lama’s raised hundreds of millions of dollars benefit Tibetan citizens in the slightest.
http://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/05/14/dalai-lama-savior-or-selfish-jerk/
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2012 at 04:12 PM
Michael Backman
May 23, 2007
... No mere spiritual leader, he was the head of Tibet's government when he went into exile in 1959. It was a state apparatus run by aristocratic, nepotistic monks that collected taxes, jailed and tortured dissenters and engaged in all the usual political intrigues.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/behind-dalai-lamas-holy-cloak/2007/05/22/1179601410290.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Post by: rexFi on Sep 17, 2012 at 04:26 PM
...
So what's new under the sun?
....
ahhh... from my favorite out of the canonical books!
Ecclesiastes :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2012 at 05:11 PM
Dalai Lama Cult: Postmodern Neo-feudalism and the Decline of the West
by Gearóid Ó Colmáin / June 11th, 2012
... According to the Dalai Lama, the Dorje Shugden are traitors to the cause of Tibetan independence. Such is the Tibetan leader’s “tolerance”. The Dalai Lama’s violations of human rights are rarely, if ever, mentioned among the cacophony of hysterical “free Tibet” sloganeering in the mass media.
Death threats and the ostracism of whole families who practice this traditional form of Buddhism are common in Dharamsala. Thousands of people have had to flee Dharamsala due to the “tolerant” Dalai Lama’s commands. Many people have been murdered.
... Breaking with official orthodoxy, the France 24 report admitted that the Dalai Lama and his independence movement has no popular support in Tibet and that many Tibetans actually fear a return to the days of Lama autocracy.
... The Dalai Lama’s problem with these Buddhists is simply that they worship the symbolic god Dorje Shugden and not “his holiness, the Dalai Lama”. The exiled leader is persecuting Buddhists for not worshiping himself and his insatiable desire to become the puppet dictator of a ‘free Tibet’ under NATO hegemony. Any worshiper of Dorje Shugden is, then, automatically dismissed as an ‘agent’ of China.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/06/dalai-lama-cult-postmodern-neo-feudalism-and-the-decline-of-the-west/
Post by: eee.dee on Sep 17, 2012 at 06:03 PM
Post by: rexFi on Sep 17, 2012 at 07:55 PM
A man does test everything by something. The question here is whether he has ever tested the test.”
- G.K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936)
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM
“Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.” -Bertrand Russell
I can relate with that. Russell's right.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 18, 2012 at 01:30 PM
even those who do not believe in God has religion!
Their own brand of religion! - - - called by some other name ;D
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 18, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 18, 2012 at 04:58 PM
Dapat ata may separate thread na about the bible...
Maganda rin yon sir.
=========================================
Innocence of Muslims: a dark demonstration of the power of film
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's movie is a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame
the Muslim world. It ought to be treated with the contempt it deserves
Posted by Peter Bradshaw
Monday 17 September 2012 17.05 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/sep/17/innocence-of-muslims-demonstration-film?newsfeed=true
Family of California man linked to anti-Islam film goes into hiding
September 18, 2012 8:34am
LOS ANGELES - Family members of a California man linked to an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests across the Muslim world went into hiding on Monday, with sheriff's deputies escorting them from their home to an undisclosed location, authorities said.
The family of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was accompanied from their two-story stucco house in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos before dawn on Monday, Los Angeles County sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/274476/news/nation/family-of-california-man-linked-to-anti-islam-film-goes-into-hiding
Anna Gurji & 'Innocence Of Muslims': Horrified
Actress Writes Letter Explaining Her Role
The Huffington Post | By Kia Makarechi
Posted: 09/17/2012 10:25 am Updated: 09/17/2012 3:52 pm
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/775415/thumbs/s-ANNA-GURJI-INNOCENCE-OF-MUSLIMS-large.jpg)
Anna Gurji is one of the actresses who starred in "Desert Warrior," a movie that was supposed to be about tribal battles prompted by the arrival of a comet on Earth. Unfortunately, "Desert Warrior" was given a heavy dose of dubbing and post-production editing. The film is now known by a new, infamous name: "Innocence of Muslims."
The anti-Islam movie, which now centers on a negative portrayal of Muhammad, has led to riots around much of the Arab world. After a series of bizarre twists involving false identities, the man behind the project has been identified as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a man with a criminal past that includes convictions on federal fraud and methamphetamine charges. Nakoula was taken in for questioning early Saturday morning, but was not under arrest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/anna-gurji-innocence-of-muslims-letter_n_1890041.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 18, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Results of the 29th British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA) have been released today, with 45.7% of respondents claiming that they do not belong to a religion. The results also show that levels of religious practice remain static at a low level, with only 14.3% claiming to attend religious services once a week or more. A large number of people have left the religion which they were brought up in. Compared with the results of the first BSA in 1983, this year’s results show that religious identity in Britain has been in decline over the past three decades.
In answer to the question ‘Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?’ 45.7% of respondents to the 29th BSA said that they did not. The religion with which the largest number of individuals identify is ‘Church of England’ at 21.1%. 8.7% of respondents identfied as ‘Roman Catholic’, and 10.1% identified as ‘Christian’ but did not give a specific denomination. 3.4% of respondents identified as ‘Muslim’, 2.2% as ‘Hindu’, 0.8% as ‘Jewish’, 0.4% described as ‘Sikh’, and 0.2% as ‘Buddhist’.
In 1983, when the first BSA was conducted, only about one in three (31%) claimed not to belong to a religion. The data on religious practice in this year’s BSA also shows that the number of people who attend religious services on a regular basis has remained almost static. In answer to the question ‘Apart from such special occasions as weddings, funerals and baptisms, how often nowadays do you attend services or meetings connected with your religion?’, only 14.3% said that they attend once a week or more. In last year’s BSA, 14% said that they attend religious services at least weekly.
The question on religious upbringing shows many respondents have left the religion which they were brought up in. 45.7% of respondents claim not to have a religion now, but only 18.3% of respondents said that they were brought up in a family which did not have a religion. The non-religious group therefore includes a large number of people who had a religious upbringing but decided to leave their faith.
Pavan Dhaliwal, BHA Head of Public Affairs, commented ‘Religious identities in Britain have been in decline over the past few decades and religious practice has remained static at a low level. These figures should be borne in mind when the upcoming results of the 2011 Census results are released, as the Census results routinely exaggerate the number of religious believers in the population. Certain government ministers have recently taken a more aggressive stance regarding the role of religion in public life, and have claimed that Britain is still a Christian country. We urge the government to take note of these new survey results, and to recognise the fact that almost half of the British population are in fact non-religious.’
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1117
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 18, 2012 at 08:57 PM
Maganda rin yon sir.
Yes. And let's concentrate more on application sa buhay natin with reference to the bible teachings. Help me draft the topic. ;)
Post by: barrister on Sep 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Then clarify in the threadstart post that the topic is for Christians. Atheists and non-Christians, sa religion thread na lang mag post.
Even without the atheists and other non-Christians, giyera patani pa rin yan. Pero at least hindi masyadong kalat-kalat ang discussions.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Sep 19, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Post by: JT on Sep 19, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Yes. And let's concentrate more on application sa buhay natin with reference to the bible teachings. Help me draft the topic. ;)
Subject : The Christian Thread or The Christian Life ???
Post by: dpogs on Sep 19, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Do you think religiosity is detrimental to the progress of the Philippines? I noticed a lot of our poor citizens may have simply given up on trying to better their lives, accepting the fact they're poor, thinking maybe if they go to church enough, the Lord will make up for their crappy Earth lives with eternity in paradise.
well, most Filipions are just religious... not 'true' Christians... thats the main reason i believe.
what do you expect if majority are not true Christians!!!
Post by: rexFi on Sep 19, 2012 at 05:11 PM
Yes. And let's concentrate more on application sa buhay natin with reference to the bible teachings. Help me draft the topic. ;)
Subject : The Christian Thread or The Christian Life ???
pwede rin, Your Life Lessons From The Bible,
medyo magiging personal nga lang malamang maraming Overshare :D
Do you think religiosity is detrimental to the progress of the Philippines? I noticed a lot of our poor citizens may have simply given up on trying to better their lives, accepting the fact they're poor, thinking maybe if they go to church enough, the Lord will make up for their crappy Earth lives with eternity in paradise.
I don't know where you got this, but I guess you haven't encountered the Issue (The Debate Within) within Evangelical circles.
Groups who believe that God Prospers believers and groups who believes just that, yung nakaBold sa quote ko sayo.
Yun bang Hyper-"Prosperity Gospel" groups vs. God is not Sta. Claus groups. :)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 19, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Post by: rexFi on Sep 19, 2012 at 09:58 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/419205_10151045408391275_763899548_n.jpg)
May ganito pala. Do also consider Mao Tse Dong and Stalin (both are Atheists).
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder)
Post by: barrister on Sep 20, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Also for their consideration:
(http://www.boomtron.com/wp-content/uploads/dahmer4-e1344577012254.png)
"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.
Post by: leomarley on Sep 20, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 20, 2012 at 03:31 PM
^ 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 :D. But when atheists give to charity, what is their motive if not a selfless concern for the well-being of others?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 20, 2012 at 03:43 PM
^ 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)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 20, 2012 at 03:47 PM
^ 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.
Post by: barrister on Sep 20, 2012 at 03:51 PM
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
Post by: leomarley on Sep 20, 2012 at 03:53 PM
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.
Post by: RU9 on Sep 20, 2012 at 04:15 PM
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?
Post by: Frankthetank on Sep 20, 2012 at 04:40 PM
Should it be taken literally or symbolically?
In your own opinions?
Post by: barrister on Sep 20, 2012 at 05:26 PM
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.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 20, 2012 at 06:47 PM
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.
Post by: barrister on Sep 20, 2012 at 08:21 PM
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? ;)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 21, 2012 at 01:21 AM
^ 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 natureit 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.
;)
Post by: Timithekid on Sep 21, 2012 at 06:45 AM
- 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?
Post by: barrister on Sep 21, 2012 at 09:59 AM
"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)
Post by: Timithekid on Sep 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Post by: sardaukar on Sep 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 21, 2012 at 12:04 PM
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.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM
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. ;D 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.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 21, 2012 at 12:29 PM
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.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 21, 2012 at 02:43 PM
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! 8)
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!
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 21, 2012 at 02:52 PM
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.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 21, 2012 at 03:10 PM
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.
Post by: barrister on Sep 21, 2012 at 04:28 PM
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. ;D 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.
Post by: barrister on Sep 21, 2012 at 05:45 PM
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... :D
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?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 21, 2012 at 06:16 PM
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... :D
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.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 21, 2012 at 06:28 PM
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. :)
Post by: rexFi on Sep 21, 2012 at 06:47 PM
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... :D
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.
Post by: bartender on Sep 21, 2012 at 07:34 PM
"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.
Post by: bartender on Sep 21, 2012 at 07:40 PM
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
I think from a philosophical standpoint, faith or belief in a god or supreme being is an acceptance of our shortcomings as human beings: that we cannot do or explain everything, hence, a being greater than us exists.
So once your mind believes that you are the best, the space for a god/ supreme being disappears, leading to atheism and the belief that everyone else is inferior to you.
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 21, 2012 at 08:02 PM
Do you believe that anime and religion conflict with each other? I know some prayerful people who despise anime and demanded that it should be banned.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 21, 2012 at 08:15 PM
1. 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.
2. 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.
1. I think even if you threw a beer bottle, it's inherent for people to catch it. the maybe drink it or drop it later. :D
2. I think there's a misinterpretation here. I think it's differentiating doing good by christians vs doing good by non-christians. And, both christians and non christians are capable of doing good in a human level. Iba naman yun doing good in a christian sense under God's eyes.
FYI, gumawa na ako ng seperate thread:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.0.html
Post by: barrister on Sep 21, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Since you mentioned "Protestants", why not use the verse that they use for Sola Fide? Reconcile James with Ephesians 2:8-10.
That's an easy one. Easier than Romans 4:5.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8-10)
It says "through faith." Does it say "faith alone"? No. Does it say "good works alone"? No.
So what does Eph. 2:8-10 mean? It says salvation cannot be attained by good works alone, "so that no one can boast." Why?
If salvation can be attained by good works alone, then a man who does good works alone can boast that he was saved by his own power alone, without any help from God. But the truth is that no matter what he does, man cannot attain salvation by his own power alone.
Faith and good works must go together. Do good works and that still would not be enough to give you salvation unless those good works are coupled with God's gift of salvation.
So good works alone are insufficient. What if you have only faith alone, would that be sufficient? Of course not. Does Eph. 2:8-10 say "faith alone"? No. That is why James 2:14-17 completes the picture by saying:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
I don't see how it can be clearer.
Therefore, the sola fide doctrine is definitely unbiblical.
Post by: sharkey360 on Sep 21, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Probation in son’s death
The parents relied on prayer instead of a doctor to heal their child, who died after his appendix ruptured
Nine months after their teenage son died of an infection from a burst appendix, a Creswell couple who chose prayer over medical care for the boy admitted criminal responsibility for his death.
Russel and Brandi Bellew each pleaded guilty on Tuesday in Lane County Circuit Court to charges of criminally negligent homicide, as part of an agreement with prosecutors.
The Bellews — who are members of a church that generally believes in using prayer instead of modern medicine to treat illnesses — avoided jail in the plea deal, but will spend the next five years on probation. During that time, they will be required to contact a doctor whenever any of their six surviving children suffer from an ailment that causes them to miss school for more than one day.
The Bellews were arrested in February after an autopsy revealed that 16-year-old Austin Sprout had died two months earlier from an infection that resulted from a ruptured appendix. The teen was Brandi Bellew’s biological child and Russel Bellew’s stepson.
The exact cause of Sprout’s death had not been publicly disclosed before Lane County prosecutor Erik Hasselman detailed the case in court on Tuesday.
Sprout, who was a junior at Creswell High School, had been sick with a variety of cold- and flu-like symptoms for about 1½ weeks before he died, Hasselman said.
“The family, through their reliance on faith, ended up praying for his recovery,” Hasselman said.
He added that the Bellews and their surviving children — who attend the General Assembly and the Church of the First Born in Pleasant Hill — told investigators that Sprout did not want a doctor to diagnose his illness.
“It appeared that (Sprout) wanted to respect his faith and the manner in which he was brought up,” Hasselman said.
But under Oregon law, a person must be 18 or older to make decisions regarding his or her own medical care.
After Sprout died at home last Dec. 20, family members phoned a local mortuary in an attempt to make funeral arrangements, Hasselman said. Someone at the mortuary then called the Lane County Medical Examiner’s Office, which prompted Lane County sheriff’s officials to launch a death investigation.
A grand jury subsequently indicted the Bellews on charges of second-degree manslaughter, which is defined in part as causing a dependent person’s death by neglect or maltreatment.
Had the couple been convicted of manslaughter, they each would have faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of six years and three months. They were instead placed on probation after being allowed to plead guilty to the less-serious felony charge of criminally negligent homicide.
The Bellews declined to offer any statement regarding Sprout’s death when given the opportunity in court.
About 40 of their supporters attended the hearing. When it ended, the couple — who had been barred by court officials from contacting each other during the past seven months — locked in a long embrace. By that time, many onlookers had tears in their eyes.
Brandi Bellew, 36, and her 40-year-old husband each spent four days in jail following their arrests. Family members bailed them out, but a jail release agreement ordered them to live apart and not speak to each other until the criminal matter played out in court.
The Bellews have been allowed in recent months to take turns caring for their surviving children, under a court-approved arrangement that required them to closely monitor the youngsters’ health needs while being supervised by a state-appointed “safety service provider.”
The children — the youngest of whom is a toddler, the oldest 17 — became wards of the state in April, although they have been living in their home with their mother. A judge will decide whether the Bellews may regain full custody of the children.
The Bellews have “cooperated completely” with child welfare workers from the state Department of Human Services, who felt it would have been “detrimental to the children’s welfare” if the couple had been sentenced to jail in connection with Sprout’s death, Hasselman said.
Brandi Bellew’s attorney, Bob Schrank of Eugene, said in court that a number of community members — including many Creswell residents who are not members of the Bellews’ church — expressed support for the couple as their criminal case unfolded.
“The parenting abilities here are just great,” Schrank said of the Bellews.
Eugene attorney Hugh Duvall, who represented Russel Bellew in court, said his client is “fully committed” to seeking medical care for his children when they become ill.
Hasselman and fellow Assistant District Attorney Erin Zemper, meanwhile, have met with church officials to make it clear that medical neglect of a child won’t be tolerated by Lane County authorities. A two-page letter authored by Hasselman was distributed in August to the church’s membership. The letter explains relevant state laws and urges parents to call a doctor whenever there is a health-related concern regarding a child.
Hasselman said in court that church members have been receptive to the outreach.
“This is not a denomination that feels that its faith is at odds with the laws of the community,” he said. About 60 families attend the church in Pleasant Hill.
Previous cases
Elsewhere, the General Assembly and the Church of the First Born has been linked to a number of deaths related to its spiritual healing practices.
In the mid-1990s, a Brownsville couple who attended the Church of the First Born became the first people in Oregon to be prosecuted for following their religious beliefs rather than taking their ill child to a doctor.
Loyd and Christina Hays initially faced charges of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 7-year-old son, who had a treatable form of leukemia.
A Linn County jury in 1996 convicted Loyd Hays of criminally negligent homicide, but acquitted his wife of all charges. A judge sentenced Loyd Hays to probation in the case.
In 1999, a new state law eliminated spiritual healing defenses against charges of second-degree manslaughter, first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment and nonpayment of child support.
Last year, Gov. John Kitzhaber signed a bill into law that removed the defense for all homicide charges. The new law came on the heels of several high-profile faith healing cases involving members of the Followers of Christ church in Oregon City.
In one case, a judge handed down a 75-month sentence to the parents of a premature baby who died without medical intervention just hours after being born.
Another case involved a 16-year-old boy who died from complications related to a urinary tract obstruction. His parents — Jeff and Marci Beagley — were each sentenced in 2010 to 16 months in prison after being convicted by a jury of criminally negligent homicide.
Clackamas County District Attorney John Foote sent a letter in April 2010 to families who belong to the Followers of Christ church that was similar in content to the one that Hasselman addressed to the membership of the Bellews’ church.
Clackamas County prosecutor Greg Horner, who handled the Beagley case, said on Tuesday that Foote’s letter to the Followers of Christ church “was met with silence.” The Beagley case went to trial, Horner added, after the couple indicated they were not interested in plea negotiations.
Horner said he understands the public’s interest in criminal cases involving families who seek to heal their children through prayer.
“It captures people’s attention because it can be perceived as a clash of values” between religious freedom and child protection issues, Horner said.
While parents are legally responsible for providing their children with appropriate medical care, adults are not required to visit a doctor if they do not wish to do so.
The Bellews married after both were widowed. Hasselman said their previous spouses both died from infections that would have been “highly treatable” had they sought medical attention.
Brandi Bellew is the biological mother of three of her surviving children. Russel Bellew fathered two of the youngsters with his previous wife. The sixth child was born to the couple in 2010.
http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/28770072-57/bellews-church-death-hasselman-sprout.html.csp
Post by: rexFi on Sep 22, 2012 at 12:39 AM
That's easier than Romans 4:5.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8-10)
It says "through faith." Does it say "faith alone"? No. Does it say "good works alone"? No.
Grammar please, it says it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works... Don't change the sentence.
Your question to drive your point is putting IN something into the verse or Eisegesis and not drawing the teaching out of it or exegesis.
So what does Eph. 2:8-10 mean? It says salvation cannot be attained by good works alone, "so that no one can boast." Why?
If salvation can be attained by good works alone, then a man who does good works alone can boast that he was saved by his own power alone, without any help from God. But the truth is that no matter what he does, man cannot attain salvation by his own power alone.
Faith and good works must go together. Do good works and that still will not give you salvation unless those good works are coupled with God's gift of salvation.
So good works alone are insufficient. What if you have only faith alone, would that be sufficient? Of course not. Does Eph. 2:8-10 say "faith alone"? No.
These are all moot because you have already put something INTO the verse. To make it more clear, how about Read the whole chapter?
That is why James 2:14-17 completes the picture by saying:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
I don't see how it can be clearer.
Therefore, the sola fide doctrine is definitely unbiblical.
So by not "modifying" the Ephesians verse, again,
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
Does this mean James is not agreeing with Paul? <-- now this is a valid question not like yours since it is established that... again:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
Wag natin dagdagan yung sentence para maiba yung tinuturo ng chapter, stick sa grammar, sa pagkakagawa ng sentence.
Now ok, established? Paul taught that that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.
So what does James Chapter 2 mean? It means Saving Faith is always accompanied by good Works or has fruit.
Now understand Ephesians 2:10 in relation to being saved by grace through faith:
10 For we are His workmanship,created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
The verse tells us we are created in christ FOR good works, not do GOOD works to be created IN Christ because in order to be IN Christ is through faith and NOT of works.
Perfect correlation with what James what saying without modifying anything.
If we say works saves then we are doing good works to be created in Christ Jesus. This is the very opposite of what the text states.
We are saved by faith alone but it is not alone - it is accompanied by works.
By not modifying anything, Sola Fide is drawn out from inside the Bible without any conflict.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" John 1:12
"But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31
"We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." 1 John 5:18 (like what James was saying in 2, they were sinning by having favoritism towards the rich etc)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
Post by: barrister on Sep 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8-10)
Grammar please, it says it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works... Don't change the sentence.
... you have already put something INTO the verse.
So by not "modifying" the Ephesians verse, again,
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
... since it is established that... again:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
Wag natin dagdagan yung sentence para maiba yung tinuturo ng chapter, stick sa grammar, sa pagkakagawa ng sentence.
...By not modifying anything, Sola Fide is drawn out from inside the Bible without any conflict.
So you are accusing me of dishonestly changing the verse to suit my purposes?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a challenger. :D
==========================================
My quotation came from the New International Version (NIV):
Ephesians 2:8-10
New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-10&version=NIV
In my NIV quote, "through faith" is followed by "—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—."
But you are insisting that "through faith" should be immediately followed by "and not of works."
Grammar please, it says it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works... Don't change the sentence.
... So by not "modifying" the Ephesians verse, again,
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
... since it is established that... again:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
Wag natin dagdagan yung sentence para maiba yung tinuturo ng chapter, stick sa grammar, sa pagkakagawa ng sentence. ...
In the original Greek, "through faith" [διὰ πίστεως] is followed by "and this not of yourselves (it is) - God's gift" (καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον). Therefore, the NIV translation of the verse is accurate.
Greek Interlinear:
http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/2-8.htm (http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/2-8.htm)
Text analysis with Strong's Numbers, Transliteration and original Greek:
http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm (http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm)
Here are other translations:
New Living Translation (©2007)
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
English Standard Version (©2001)
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
International Standard Version (©2008)
For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For it is by his grace that we have been saved through faith, and this faith was not from you, but it is the gift of God,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American King James Version
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American Standard Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Douay-Rheims Bible
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;
Darby Bible Translation
For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God's gift:
English Revised Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Webster's Bible Translation
For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Weymouth New Testament
For it is by grace that you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is God's gift, and is not on the ground of merit--
World English Bible
for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Young's Literal Translation
for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,
http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-8.htm
None of them have "and not of works" immediately following "through faith."
Ironically, your own full quotation of Eph. 2:8-10 also does not have "and not of works" immediately following "through faith."
..."For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
You quoted the King James Version (KJV):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:8-10&version=KJV
=========================================
So before you accuse me of dishonesty, please be sure that you know what you are talking about.
One last thing. You said, "Grammar please"? You're a funny guy, Bubba ... :D
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 22, 2012 at 11:15 AM
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8-10)
Kaya ko ito favorite. ;D
It simply means that salvation comes through faith. And since faith is a grace, faith is a gift from God. So we did not choose to be saved. Instead, it is our all powerful God, who is the source of our grace, who chooses the people to be saved.
Good works automatically follow to those who have faith. Kung baga, if you have faith in God, pero walang good works, for me, questionable yun dba?
Pero yun kasama ni Jesus Christ na napako sa cross, di ba walang good works na nagawa pero he was saved. It think because namatay na siya kaya hindi na nasundan ng good works. :D
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 01:11 PM
Kaya ko ito favorite. ;D
It simply means that salvation comes through faith. And since faith is a grace, faith is a gift from God. So we did not choose to be saved. Instead, it is our all powerful God, who is the source of our grace, who chooses the people to be saved.
Uhm? hmm.. Salvation is the Gift from God, that can be received through Faith and NOT works.
People do not simply... work for a Gift. :)
...but I get what you mean, since faith is a gift too.
Good works automatically follow to those who have faith. Kung baga, if you have faith in God, pero walang good works, for me, questionable yun dba?
Pero yun kasama ni Jesus Christ na napako sa cross, di ba walang good works na nagawa pero he was saved. It think because namatay na siya kaya hindi na nasundan ng good works. :D
Actually, he did show "fruit" vs. the other guy which he rebuked. He also "repented" and asked Jesus to be remembered by Him in paradise.
They are fruits of his faith and is considered an Action/Work.
*edit to add some periods, commas etc. :)
*grammar siyempre. :P
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 01:29 PM
So you are accusing me of dishonestly changing the verse to suit my purposes?
You're changing it by asking an invalid question:
"Does it say faith alone? work alone"?
When the verse can stand on its own and is saying a direct thing.
My quotation came from the New International Version (NIV):
Ephesians 2:8-10
New International Version (NIV)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-10&version=NIV
In my NIV quote, "through faith" is followed by "—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—."
But you are insisting that "through faith" should be immediately followed by "and not of works."
In the original Greek, "through faith" [διὰ πίστεως] is followed by "and this not of yourselves (it is) - God's gift" (καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον). Therefore, the NIV translation of the verse is accurate.
Greek Interlinear:
http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/2-8.htm (http://interlinearbible.org/ephesians/2-8.htm)
Text analysis with Strong's Numbers, Transliteration and original Greek:
http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm (http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm)
Here are other translations:
New Living Translation (©2007)
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can't take credit for this; it is a gift from God.
English Standard Version (©2001)
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
International Standard Version (©2008)
For by such grace you have been saved through faith. This does not come from you; it is the gift of God
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For it is by his grace that we have been saved through faith, and this faith was not from you, but it is the gift of God,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
God saved you through faith as an act of kindness. You had nothing to do with it. Being saved is a gift from God.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American King James Version
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
American Standard Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Douay-Rheims Bible
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;
Darby Bible Translation
For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God's gift:
English Revised Version
for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Webster's Bible Translation
For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Weymouth New Testament
For it is by grace that you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is God's gift, and is not on the ground of merit--
World English Bible
for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Young's Literal Translation
for by grace ye are having been saved, through faith, and this not of you -- of God the gift,
http://bible.cc/ephesians/2-8.htm
None of them have "and not of works" immediately following "through faith."
Ironically, your own full quotation of Eph. 2:8-10 also does not have "and not of works" immediately following "through faith."
You quoted the King James Version (KJV):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%202:8-10&version=KJV
=========================================
So before you accuse me of dishonesty, please be sure that you know what you are talking about.
One last thing. You said, "Grammar please"? You're a funny guy, Bubba ... :D
???
Yep grammar please, you and I "completing" the verse putting in "not of yourselves" (<-- which pertains to the GIFT mind you) and then NOT of works(verse 9) did not change my argument from my last post and is still the correct interpretation than you asking an invalid question.
So sure from your own link:
http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm (http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-8.htm)
http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-9.htm (http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-9.htm)
http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-10.htm (http://biblos.com/ephesians/2-10.htm)
It still stand that, by Grace Alone, by faith alone (not of ourselves) and NOT of works so no one can boast WE are saved <<-- and that Faith is not a dead faith because it produces good works as explained from verse 10.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a challenger. :D
I don't now about that, we are just discussing an important doctrine of us Evangelicals/Protestant/Reformed.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 24, 2012 at 02:36 PM
ang anak ng Diyos (Christian) kaya gumagawa ng mabuti kasi anak siya ng Diyos.... hindi siya gumagawa ng mabuti para maging anak ng Diyos.
paano ba maging aso? ang isilang ng isang babaeng aso o ang kumahol ng kumahol?
paano ba maging anak ng Diyos? to be born again (spirit) or gumawa ng maraming kabutihan?
salvation is complete when Christ gave His life, died, buried and resurrected. it is a gift. a gift is free. no need to work for it if it is free. we just need to received it by faith. i believe that, by saying that we need to work for our salvation is an insult to what Christ did for us.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 02:46 PM
...
ang anak ng Diyos (Christian) kaya gumagawa ng mabuti kasi anak siya ng Diyos.... hindi siya gumagawa ng mabuti para maging anak ng Diyos.
...
Yup. That is basically Ephesians 2:10. :)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 24, 2012 at 03:07 PM
basically the same saying na 'ang aso para manatiling aso ay kailangan niyang kumahol ng kumahol'?
Paul speaks on how a sinner become son of God.
James speaks on how a son of God walks as a son of God. James never said that faith+work is equal to salvation. James said that "faith that saves is not alone".
there is a big difference between faith alone and faith+works as a means of salvation.
Post by: barrister on Sep 24, 2012 at 04:06 PM
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8-10)
Grammar please, it says it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works... Don't change the sentence.
...So by not "modifying" the Ephesians verse, again,
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
... again:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
Wag natin dagdagan yung sentence para maiba yung tinuturo ng chapter, stick sa grammar, sa pagkakagawa ng sentence.
The verse merely says, "faith" without "alone," yet it is your denomination that insists on saying "faith alone."
That is why I asked rhetorically, "Does it say, 'faith alone'?" --- to emphasize what the verse does not say. My question does not add anything to the verse. In fact, it does the exact opposite, because it preserves what is written, by preventing the addition of any other word.
You, on the other hand, repeatedly insisted that the verse said "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works," when it clearly does not.
Your motivation is to prove that your "sola fide" (faith alone) doctrine is correct, even if there is no verse in the bible that says, "faith alone."
Therefore, it is clear that it was you who changed the verse, not me.
=========================================
No matter how clearly I explain it, you will never agree. Because agreeing will mean that your doctrine falls apart.
Like I said:
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... :D
Me, I do not belong to any formal denomination. I just read the bible, without having to worry about protecting any denomination's vested interests.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 04:46 PM
The verse merely says, "faith" without "alone," yet it is your denomination that insists on saying "faith alone."
Your motivation is to prove that your "sola fide" (faith alone) doctrine is correct, even if there is no verse in the bible that says "faith alone."
That is why I asked rhetorically, "Does it say, 'faith alone'?" --- to emphasize what the verse does not say. My question does not add anything to the verse. In fact, it does the exact opposite, because it preserves what is written by preventing the addition of any other word.
The verse doesn't have to include the word alone for reading the "whole" verse, it is already saying that Salvation is a Gift, received through Faith (and this not of yourselves, yes talking about the Gift) and NOT of works then continuing on with verse 10 <-- which you haven't tackled by the way.
Tagalog: Faith daw makukuha and Salvation(not of ourselves) hindi Works. Bakit pinipilit na may kasamang work and hindi "alone" yung faith since di nga daw work?
Your question is invalid(IOW Fallacy)
Quote
Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain.
This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather what is available in the author's extant writings.
Emphasis mine. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence)
The underlined is what you are doing sir.
You, on the other hand, repeatedly insisted that the verse said "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works," when it does not.It is ok since the main thought is preserved even with the Greek.
Therefore, it is clear that it was you who changed the verse, not me.
AND I don't know what the fuss is about, since, without modifying my post in question(which you said Ironically), I did quote the "other" version on the very last set of bible verses I posted. Check it. ;)
...
By not modifying anything, Sola Fide is drawn out from inside the Bible without any conflict.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" John 1:12
"But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31
"We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." 1 John 5:18 (like what James was saying in 2, they were sinning by having favoritism towards the rich etc)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
^^ See?
=========================================
No matter how clearly I explain it, you will never agree. Because agreeing will mean that your doctrine falls apart.
Like I said:
Me, I do not belong to any formal denomination. I just read the bible, without having to worry about protecting any denomination's vested interests.
I would like to request to kindly stop putting Malice in our discussion and just stay on topic.
And I am disagreeing with you because I'm siding to what I know is right.
Exegesis vs. Eisegesis <-- this is non-denominational and a universal thing.
Besides you're kinda accusing me of being "close-minded" when in fact I think my decision to believe what I believe is informed.
I vote to stop "talking about ourselves" and just discuss the Scripture in question if you want to continue. If it again goes to talking about denominations, then I have no more business discussing on this thread. :)
*edits: corrected the fallacy link, tackled the NOT works immediately verse, the quotes above the "^^See?" ;D
Post by: dpogs on Sep 24, 2012 at 04:52 PM
also, when is the part that a man become a son of God (Christian)? before faith, after repentance or its a process as he/she walks or it depends if he stop doing good works?
Post by: barrister on Sep 24, 2012 at 05:03 PM
It is ok since the main thought is preserved even with the Greek.
So you admit that you dishonestly changed the verse to suit your purposes? ;)
based on how you read the Bible sir barrister, does it mean that every Christian must continually do good works to maintain his/her status as a son of God?
also, when is the part that a man become a son of God (Christian)? before faith, after repentance or its a process as he/she walks or it depends if he stop doing good works?
Si sir dpogs, kahit kaliwa't kanan ang tinatanggap na insulto sa religion thread, maginoo pa rin. I admire your cool temperament. ;)
First of all, help me understand your point by answering this:
Do you believe in the doctrine, "Once Saved, Always Saved"?
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 05:29 PM
So you admit that you dishionestly changed the verse to suit your purposes? ;)
No, I did not change the "thought" of the verse. I think you just misunderstood.
Based on me quoting the KJV verse in the end, it is pretty clear that I am aware that there is "and this not of yourselves" since that is not the point of our discussion until later.
And now I know what the problem is, look at our discussion so far.
1. First, I said you were adding something to the verse, by asking an invalid question.
- then I merely used the thought of the verse that is in question. Adding the phrase "and this not of yourselves" does not change the thought of the posts that I have been putting out.
2. You are focusing on the the phrase "and this not of yourselves" because you thought I am accusing you of literally changing/modifying the verse, when what I am saying is that:
By asking an invalid question you are changing the thought of the verse.
-- Which I explained why already. This is what I am saying "honestly" and I hope its understood and is clear.
Si sir dpogs, kahit kaliwa't kanan ang tinatanggap na insulto sa religion thread, maginoo pa rin. I admire your cool temperament. ;)
Boo! ako rin naman ah? hehe *oops stop talking about ourselves nga pala
...
...
*edit: AND by the way, you sir changed the thought of my post again by not including the..
Quote
AND I don't know what the fuss is about, since, without modifying my post in question(which you said Ironically), I did quote the "other" version on the very last set of bible verses I posted. Check it.
You focused only on the above sentence, I believe that is another fallacy. :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 24, 2012 at 05:39 PM
No, I did not change the "thought" of the verse. I think you just misunderstood.
I'm not asking about the "thought," because the "thought" is a matter of interpretation. And we have different interpretations.
I'm asking you about the verse itself.
Mahilig ka pala sir magpalit-palit ng statement pag naiipit, ano? ;)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 24, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Si sir dpogs, kahit kaliwa't kanan ang tinatanggap na insulto sa religion thread, maginoo pa rin. I admire your cool temperament. ;)
First of all, help me understand your point by answering this:
Do you believe in the doctrine, "Once Saved, Always Saved"?
that is one of the Baptist's doctrine... well....
in terms of what is needed to be son of God i believe sa motto na "Once Saved, Always Saved".
in terms of how we live as a Chrisitan or as a son of God, that is not applicable, we need to workout our salvation for them (unbeliever) to determine if we are indeed a son of God. Unbeliever needs evidence and we show it by our works. and if we are saying that we are son of God, but no manifestation of faith, isa lang ibig sabihin noon, our faith is not genuine.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 05:59 PM
I'm not asking about the "thought," because the "thought" is a matter of interpretation. And we have different interpretations.
I'm asking you about the verse itself.
Mahilig ka pala sir magpalit-palit ng statement pag naiipit, ano? ;)
Nope nalito ka lang, na ngayon ko lang narealize.
Your asking me about the verse itself? Yan nga yung number 2 ng flow ng discussion natin na pinoint out ko.
2. You are focusing on the the phrase "and this not of yourselves" because you thought I am accusing you of literally changing/modifying the verse, when what I am saying is that:
By asking an invalid question you are changing the thought of the verse.
-- Which I explained why already. This is what I am saying "honestly" and I hope its understood and is clear.
You thought I said literal mo chinechange yung verse when I am simply pointing out the Fallacy of your question. E.g. paulit ulit yung word ko na not valid etc.
Clearly naman na sinasabi kong modification by adding in the alone, magiiba yung sinasabi ng verse, not like pag di nasama yung "and this not of yourselves" then NOT of works ganon parin ang interpretation ng verse na mangyayari for short:
By Grace, Through Faith NOT Works <--
While your proposed interpretation is by asking an if/else question that has nothing to do with the verse already.
EDIT: If you are not satisfied, here's evidence of the whole thing I am saying:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
Wag natin dagdagan yung sentence para maiba yung tinuturo ng chapter, stick sa grammar, sa pagkakagawa ng sentence.
Emphasis mine.
By asking the question why is the word "alone" not included "you do add something in it", hence the fallacy.
Me by not including "and this not of yourselves" does not change the correct teaching of the chapter.
Besides, nagStart nga ako sa "it is by grace" hindi "FOR (it) is by grace" <-- na literal sa bible, naiba ko rin yon. Check the many verses you posted. None of them too starts with "it is by grace".
You are focusing on the phrase I did not include then accuse me of being dishonest. Since start I am only using the thought of the verse.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 24, 2012 at 06:48 PM
based on how you read the Bible sir barrister,
1. does it mean that every Christian must continually do good works to maintain his/her status as a son of God?
2. also, when is the part that a man become a son of God (Christian)? before faith, after repentance or its a process as he/she walks or it depends if he stop doing good works?
1. For me, when we say must continually do good works to maintain status, parang there's something wrong. I mean, when we say must, parang we are obligating ourselves. IMHO, doing good works must come naturally. If in the back of our mind, we do good works to maintain status, parang mali pa din. Correct me kung mali ang pagkaka-intindi ko. A good example for me is, the normal relationship between parents and kid/s. Kapag nadapa, automatic tutulungan natin tumayo, with nothing in return.
2. We automatically become children of God if we accept Jesus as our ONLY savior and surrender everything (our problems, sins etc) to Him. If we are true to this, repentance for our sins come before accepting Jesus.
Post by: barrister on Sep 24, 2012 at 07:13 PM
that is one of the Baptist's doctrine... well....
in terms of what is needed to be son of God i believe sa motto na "Once Saved, Always Saved".
in terms of how we live as a Chrisitan or as a son of God, that is not applicable, we need to workout our salvation for them (unbeliever) to determine if we are indeed a son of God. Unbeliever needs evidence and we show it by our works. and if we are saying that we are son of God, but no manifestation of faith, isa lang ibig sabihin noon, our faith is not genuine.
You've never stated which denomination you belong to, so thanks for clarifying. At least I now know where you're coming from.
I do not believe in the doctrine, "OSAS" (once saved always saved). But if that's what you believe in, e di OK lang. Kanya-kanyang interpretation yan e.
"Perseverance of the Saints" is Calvinist doctrine interpreting Romans 8:39 to mean that once a person is saved, he will always remian in the state of being saved:
38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:39)
OSAS is a more modern slogan, but it's just a restatement of the Perseverance of the Saints doctine, which means those who are saved can never lose their salvation.
However, I do not believe in OSAS because it is not biblical.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 07:18 PM
1. For me, when we say must continually do good works to maintain status, parang there's something wrong. I mean, when we say must, parang we are obligating ourselves. IMHO, doing good works must come naturally. If in the back of our mind, we do good works to maintain status, parang mali pa din. Correct me kung mali ang pagkaka-intindi ko. A good example for me is, the normal relationship between parents and kid/s. Kapag nadapa, automatic tutulungan natin tumayo, with nothing in return.
Hi sir, yes. Ang "maintenance" for salvation is God's Grace Alone and the Faith Alone Response of the individual. We cannot respond if God does not give us Grace first, cannot do good works without Faith first.
2. We automatically become children of God if we accept Jesus as our ONLY savior and surrender everything (our problems, sins etc) to Him. If we are true to this, repentance for our sins come before accepting Jesus.
We can only accept Jesus IF God grants us the grace to do so, He seems to do it since John 3:16 says so :) etc.
Bible doctrine wise, my position is against OSAS but it doesn't matter.
Both believes that only God knows who are truly His anyway.
The debate usually with "them" is with the countless warnings against falling out found in scriptures and the "not saved in the first place" argument. <<-- AS I have mentioned I think in the LGBT Issues thread, I am retired in Polemics.
Nadraw lang naman ako dito dahil sa Sola Fide. :)
I think its time to say goodbye.
For those interested in my Theological Background go to these sites:
http://www.fwponline.cc/ (http://www.fwponline.cc/) <- Fundamental Wesleyan, be sure to checkout the Arminian Magazine (http://www.fwponline.cc/arminiandex.html).
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com (http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com) - great resource vs. Calvinists. The comment sections every article is great.
http://arminian.com/fundamental-wesleyan-society-bookstore.html (http://arminian.com/fundamental-wesleyan-society-bookstore.html) - Wesleyan Basics
www.eternalsecurity.us/ (http://www.eternalsecurity.us/) <-- A Wesleyan-Arminian website, Good resource for Anti-OSAS.
http://www.eternalsecurity.us/biblical_theology.htm (http://www.eternalsecurity.us/biblical_theology.htm) <-- the main site.
http://prewrathrapture.com (http://prewrathrapture.com) <-- ehh, not dogmatic about this, but this was my last Eschatological position.
But I belong to this non-denominational denomination ;D
http://www.cogic.org/ (http://www.cogic.org/) - YUP am Trinitarian Pentecostal ;) I am the Drummer for our Worship Team, I can sing some too *ehem*
and this is where I "was" active in Polemics:
thebereans.net (http://thebereans.net) <-- just go to the forums. I was joe_higashi there.
God Speed to everyone.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 24, 2012 at 07:19 PM
You've never stated which denomination you belong to, so thanks for clarifying. At least I now know where you're coming from.
I do not believe in the doctrine, "OSAS" (once saved always saved). But if that's what you believe in, e di OK lang. Kanya-kanyang interpretation yan e.
"Perseverance of the Saints" is Calvinist doctrine interpreting Romans 8:39 to mean that once a person is saved, he will always remian in the state of being saved:
38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:39)
OSAS is a more modern slogan, but it's just a restatement of the Perseverance of the Saints doctine, which means those who are saved can never lose their salvation.
However, I do not believe in OSAS becase it is not biblical.
hmmm... it simply shows that you believe in an idea "in order to keep salvation (status of being a son of God) we still need to do good works" ???
i believe that once i became a son of God (that is by true faith), then i will be forever son of God whatever happens (given that i have a genuine faith). That is how I see the promise of God according to the Bible. BUT (there is a BIG BUT here), that is not a license for me kaya ko nang gawin ang gusto kong gawin - including evil things.
i am a son of my father with surname "Santos", anuman gawin ko hindi maikakaila ng aking ama na ako ay kanyang anak, magbago man ako ng apelyido hindi mawawala ang katotohanang anak pa rin niya ako, we are connected by blood. same with my relationship to God, whatever i do, i am still a son of God, if i do mischief, God the Father have all the rights to justice/scold me (even physical death), but never an spiritual death.
Me and my God the Father been connected by the blood of Jesus Christ. who can disconnect that connection from God the Father?
- my sins : this been settled already. Jesus paid for my sins. (this is not a license to do evil things)
- devils : they can hurt me physically but they can never separate me from the love of God
- God the Father : Jesus is my mediator
hindi ko magagawang tumbasan sa pamamagitan ng 'good works' ang ginawa ng Panginoong Hesus. ang 'salvation' been complete when He died, buried and rise from the grave. for me, to do good works just to maintain my salvation is basically the same thing as saying na "Jesus, what you did is not enough, i still need to do good works, to maintain my salvation".
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 07:27 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 24, 2012 at 07:48 PM
By the way pala, di ba gagawa ng Christian Lifestyle and the Bible na thread? :)
Meron na. Dito rin sa big talk. the walk naman yun. ;D
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 07:50 PM
Meron na. Dito rin sa big talk. the walk naman yun. ;D
Cool! I bid farewell to this thread. ^_^
...
:)
Post by: barrister on Sep 24, 2012 at 08:47 PM
No, I did not change the "thought" of the verse. I think you just misunderstood.
Nope nalito ka lang, na ngayon ko lang narealize.
No, hindi ako nalito, sir.
Grammar please, it says it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works... Don't change the sentence.
...So by not "modifying" the Ephesians verse, again,
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
... again:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works
Wag natin dagdagan yung sentence para maiba yung tinuturo ng chapter, stick sa grammar, sa pagkakagawa ng sentence.
Ang sabi mo: "IT SAYS" --- "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works."
Hindi mo sinabing "it means;" hindi mo rin sinabing "my interpretation is;" hindi mo rin sinabing "the thought of the verse is." Ang sabi mo, "IT SAYS."
Then you said, "by not 'modifying' the Ephesians verse... it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works."
Ako ang nalito, o ikaw ang nagpapalusot pagkatapos maipit? ;)
Post by: barrister on Sep 24, 2012 at 09:18 PM
hmmm... it simply shows that you believe in an idea "in order to keep salvation (status of being a son of God) we still need to do good works" ???
It is not my own idea. It's what the bible teaches.
===========================================
5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? (2 Cor. 13:5)
If you are "in the faith" and "Christ Jesus is in you," then you are saved. Unless you fail the test. In the faith ka na, Christ Jesus is in you pa, pero kulang pa rin ---- if you fail the test, laglag ka pa rin.
Akala ko ba hindi na mawawala? E bakit puwede pa ring mawala ang kaligtasan sa sitas na ito? Kasi may kundisyon. Kung hindi ka tutupad sa kundisyon, mawawala pa rin sa iyo ang kaligtasan.
2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. (1 Cor. 15:2)
By this gospel you are saved, ang sabi. E di may faith ka na. Pero kulang pa rin, kasi may condition ---- if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
E di puwede pa ring mawala. Ligtas ka na raw, pero kailangang matiyaga mong iingatan ang salitang ipinangaral. Pag hindi mo matiyagang iingatan, mawawala ang kaligtasan sa iyo. Kaya nga ang sabi, "Otherwise, you have believed in vain." Sayang lang ang faith mo, kasi hindi puwedeng faith lang ay tapos na ang lahat. Kung faith lang ang kailangan, ano pala ang masasayang? Di ba ang paniniwala ninyo, "faith alone" lang ang kailangan at tapos na?
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. ... (Heb. 6:4-6)
1. ... who have once been enlightened,
2. who have tasted the heavenly gift,
3. who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
4. who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age.
Kung nasa kanya nang lahat iyan, siyempre naman ligtas na ang taong yon. Pagkatapos na makuha niya ang kaligtasan, puwede pa bang mawala? Siyempre naman.
Ang sabi sa sitas: "and who have fallen away." E di puwede nga.
Puwede pa bang bumalik ang kaligtasan kung makuha mo at pagkatapos ay mawala? Ang liwanag ng sagot: "It is impossible ... to be brought back to repentance."
for me, to do good works just to maintain my salvation is basically the same thing as saying na "Jesus, what you did is not enough, i still need to do good works, to maintain my salvation".
No, baliktad ang intindi mo sir. For you, doing good works insults the sacrifice of Jesus. Hindi ganon sa bible.
Sa bible, if you were once saved, you should continue your good works to honor Christ's sacrifice. Because if you subsequently lose your salvation, you crucify and humiliate Christ all over again:
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. (Heb. 6:4-6)
That is why after you receive the gift of salvation, you must continuously work to keep it. Otherwise, salvation will be taken away from you, and no amount of repentance will bring back the salvation you lost:
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (Heb. 10:26-27)
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 09:58 PM
No, hindi ako nalito, sir.
Ang sabi mo: "IT SAYS" --- "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works."
Hindi mo sinabing "it means;" hindi mo rin sinabing "my interpretation is;" hindi mo rin sinabing "the thought of the verse is." Ang sabi mo, "IT SAYS." Then you said, "by not 'modifying' the Ephesians verse."
Ako ang nalito, o ikaw ang nagpapalusot pagkatapos maipit? ;)
Hindi ko sinabi but that's what I meant and still I interpreted this verse:
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Eph. 2:8-10)
The same way with or without the missing words (FOR, "and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—")
Sa wala palang yung "FOR" you should have already seen what I'm doing which is saying the meaning. "IT SAYS" talagang it says that while you on the other hand is asking an invalid question.
Saka ambabaw naman :) see ako nga nagbring up ng Eph 2:8-10 di ba? Quoting the whole verse the first time?
then you asked and tried to add the word "alone" when the verse is stand alone already and IT SAYS withouth adding anything, in this case you adding the word alone:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works.
Now The Meaning as I say it says still stands as the correct one and yours is Fallacious/Invalid.
I tackled ALL your arguments, and it has been proven moot while you keep on going back to the same argument that I said this, I said that etc.
*guess I'm back to this thread :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 24, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Hindi ko sinabi but that's what I meant and still I interpreted this verse:
First, ang sabi mo, "IT SAYS." And "by not modifying" pa, ang sabi mo.
Ngayon, ang sinasabi mo, "that's what I meant" and "I interpreted."
Pero ok lang yon sir, sanay naman ako sa mga nagpapalit ng statement pag naiipit, e... ;)
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 10:29 PM
It is not my own idea. It's what the bible teaches.
===========================================
5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test? (2 Cor. 13:5)
If you are "in the faith" and "Christ Jesus is in you," then you are saved. Unless you fail the test. In the faith ka na, Christ Jesus is in you pa, pero kulang pa rin ---- if you fail the test, laglag ka pa rin.
Akala ko ba hindi na mawawala? E bakit puwede pa ring mawala ang kaligtasan sa sitas na ito? Kasi may kundisyon. Kung hindi ka tutupad sa kundisyon, mawawala pa rin sa iyo ang kaligtasan.
Again your adding something. You assume that the Test there is works? "It says"
5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!
Again compared it to Ephesians 2:10 (which you do not tackle by the way in my past posts).
..Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?
Valid question: How do you become IN Christ again(and He in you)? See the interpretation that I presented in Ephesians 2:8-10 and case in point is verse 10.
2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. (1 Cor. 15:2)
By this gospel you are saved, ang sabi. E di may faith ka na. Pero kulang pa rin, kasi may condition ---- if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
Again you assume the condition is "works", nope, this is still Faith. *faith come through hearing, you accept it etc then refer to Ephesians 2:8-10.
E di puwede pa ring mawala. Ligtas ka na raw, pero kailangang matiyaga mong iingatan ang salitang ipinangaral. Pag hindi mo matiyagang iingatan, mawawala ang kaligtasan sa iyo. Kaya nga ang sabi, "Otherwise, you have believed in vain." Sayang lang ang faith mo, kasi hindi puwedeng faith lang ay tapos na ang lahat. Kung faith lang ang kailangan, ano pala ang masasayang? Di ba ang paniniwala ninyo, "faith alone" lang ang kailangan at tapos na?
paniniwala namin Faith Alone - produces good works. This one is saying that *hold on to Faith/Word
SO condition is the Faith. *please don't ask "where is the word alone there?
I see we not seeing each other eye to eye until you accept Ephesians 2:8-10.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. ... (Heb. 6:4-6)
1. ... who have once been enlightened,
2. who have tasted the heavenly gift,
3. who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
4. who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age.
Kung nasa kanya nang lahat iyan, siyempre naman ligtas na ang taong yon. Pagkatapos na makuha niya ang kaligtasan, puwede pa bang mawala? Siyempre naman.
Ang sabi sa sitas: "and who have fallen away." E di puwede nga.
I AGREE ;)
Puwede pa bang bumalik ang kaligtasan kung makuha mo at pagkatapos ay mawala? Ang liwanag ng sagot: "It is impossible ... to be brought back to repentance."
If you look closely, "present tense" ang sa verse 6...
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
See sa footnote, click here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%206:6&version=NASB), it can be interpreted as "while" crucifying anew etc.
No, baliktad ang intindi mo sir. For you, doing good works insults the sacrifice of Jesus. Hindi ganon sa bible.
Sa bible, if you were once saved, you should continue your good works to honor Christ's sacrifice. Because if you subsequently lose your salvation, you crucify and humiliate Christ all over again:
Nope, its continue to have faith(alone) that produces good works. See Ephesians 2:8-10.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. (Heb. 6:4-6)
Yeph, dito present tense ang crucifying etc...
That is why after you receive the gift of salvation, you must continuously work to keep it. Otherwise, salvation will be taken away from you, and no amount of repentance will bring back the salvation you lost:
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (Heb. 10:26-27)
Deliberately sinning is a sign of "Faith" failing the test and eventually the person Spiritually dies.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 24, 2012 at 10:33 PM
First, ang sabi mo, "IT SAYS." And "by not modifying" pa, ang sabi mo.
Ngayon, ang sinasabi mo, "that's what I meant" and "I interpreted."
Pero ok lang yon sir, sanay naman ako sa mga nagpapalit ng statement pag naiipit, e... ;)
"IT SAYS." And "by not modifying" parin ang sinabi ko sa post na kinoute mo. You keep ignoring, pinuputol mo lagi sinasabi ko, kaya ka nagiimbento ng kung ano ano eh. ^_^
See below:
...then you asked and tried to add the word "alone" when the verse is stand alone already and IT SAYS withouth adding anything, in this case you adding the word alone:
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and NOT of works.
Now The Meaning as I say it says still stands as the correct one and yours is Fallacious/Invalid.
I tackled ALL your arguments, and it has been proven moot while you keep on going back to the same argument that I said this, I said that etc.
*guess I'm back to this thread :)
See? Hindi ako nagpapalit ng argumento/statement while you ignore the whole post and keep on concentrating to discredit the person you are debating with. :)
Lalo na when I am saying that there is no difference on the interpretation of what Ephesians said to what I said. NA di mo naman tinatackle, invalid questioning lang.
Interchanging what I said Ephesians says and what Ephesians 2:8-9 does not change anything.
Actually tapos na dapat ang discussion because of your invalid question hence the product is your wrong interpretation. Humahaba lang kasi paulit ulit ka. :)
Post by: barrister on Sep 25, 2012 at 09:31 AM
I think its time to say goodbye. ...God Speed to everyone.
I bid farewell to this thread. ^_^
My argument is so strong that he just has to come back:
*guess I'm back to this thread :)
And add just one last post...
... and maybe just another final post...
... no, maybe this one final, final, final post... :D
Post by: rexFi on Sep 25, 2012 at 09:33 AM
My argument is so strong that he just has to come back:
And add just one more post...
... and maybe just one last post...
... no, just one final, final, final post... :D
O0
Post by: rexFi on Sep 25, 2012 at 09:40 AM
Without asking invalid questions in turn modifying this verse:
NASB:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Repeat without changing anything like you by asking your question in KJV
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Specially in connection with verse 10 without modifying it into working to be created etc.
Post by: barrister on Sep 25, 2012 at 09:54 AM
Post by: rexFi on Sep 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM
KJV
8
9 Not of works,
then
...
Now ok, established? Paul taught that that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.
So what does James Chapter 2 mean? It means Saving Faith is always accompanied by good Works or has fruit.
Now understand Ephesians 2:10 in relation to being saved by grace through faith:
10 For we are His workmanship,created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
The verse tells us we are created in christ FOR good works, not do GOOD works to be created IN Christ because in order to be IN Christ is through faith and NOT of works.
Perfect correlation with what James what saying without modifying anything.
If we say works saves then we are doing good works to be created in Christ Jesus. This is the very opposite of what the text states.
We are saved by faith alone but it is not alone - it is accompanied by works.
By not modifying anything, Sola Fide is drawn out from inside the Bible without any conflict.
"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" John 1:12
"But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31
"We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him." 1 John 5:18 (like what James was saying in 2, they were sinning by having favoritism towards the rich etc)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10
...
the
Sola Fide is drawn OUT from the Bible by letting the verses be.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 25, 2012 at 12:26 PM
James speaks about "faith that saves is not alone"
we need only faith to become son of God (born again spiritually). eto ang tinutukoy ni Paul.
once we become son of God (spiritually born), desire of milk as a newborn baby will manifest - desire of Word of God, good works will manifest as if it comes naturally, a desire to do good will always be there. That is genuine faith. That is faith that saves that is not alone. eto ang tinutukoy ni James.
a person who have blind faith (professing to be true christian but no genuine faith), desire of milk doesnt manifest, desire to do good work is not in her/his heart. that is why he/she keep on sinning because he/she has no 'faith that saves', remember na marami ang nagprophesy in His name, marami ang gumawa ng mabuti is God's name but never going to heaven... because what they have is blind faith not 'faith that saves' na tinutukoy ni Paul.
Post by: barrister on Sep 25, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Sola Fide is drawn OUT from the Bible by letting the verses be.
And just one more final post ... ;)
Post by: JT on Sep 25, 2012 at 01:34 PM
Until one man did step forward. Blondin successfuly crossed the gorge back and forth with this man on his back.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Charles.Blondin.jpg)
Now, Who has truly believe that Blondin can crossed the gorge with a man on his back? Who has shown true faith with Blondin?
Same is true with christian faith. You profess to have faith but are you willing to gve up your life for it?
Your FAITH justifies your salvation, but your ACTION justifies your FAITH as what Abraham did when he is willing to sacrifice Isaac because he believed in God.
Post by: rexFi on Sep 25, 2012 at 01:45 PM
And just one more final post ... ;)
Sola Fide is drawn OUT from the Bible by letting the verses be NOT dreaming up questions asking Paul should have written something to make your Theology correct.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Ephesians 2:8-10
Read up what Exegesis means.
...
I think its time to say goodbye.
For those interested in my Theological Background go to these sites:
http://www.fwponline.cc/ (http://www.fwponline.cc/) <- Fundamental Wesleyan, be sure to checkout the Arminian Magazine (http://www.fwponline.cc/arminiandex.html).
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com (http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com) - great resource vs. Calvinists. The comment sections every article is great.
http://arminian.com/fundamental-wesleyan-society-bookstore.html (http://arminian.com/fundamental-wesleyan-society-bookstore.html) - Wesleyan Basics
www.eternalsecurity.us/ (http://www.eternalsecurity.us/) <-- A Wesleyan-Arminian website, Good resource for Anti-OSAS.
http://www.eternalsecurity.us/biblical_theology.htm (http://www.eternalsecurity.us/biblical_theology.htm) <-- the main site.
http://prewrathrapture.com (http://prewrathrapture.com) <-- ehh, not dogmatic about this, but this was my last Eschatological position.
But I belong to this non-denominational denomination ;D
http://www.cogic.org/ (http://www.cogic.org/) - YUP am Trinitarian Pentecostal ;) I am the Drummer for our Worship Team, I can sing some too *ehem*
and this is where I "was" active in Polemics:
thebereans.net (http://thebereans.net) <-- just go to the forums. I was joe_higashi there.
God Speed to everyone.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 25, 2012 at 01:57 PM
Your FAITH justifies your salvation, ...
justification before God...
..., but your ACTION justifies your FAITH as what Abraham did when he is willing to sacrifice Isaac because he believed in God.
justification before men...
if we say we have true faith, then we must show it by our works. if we say that we are son of God, then we must walk like a son of God.
we dont need to do good works to be son of God, we do good works because we are son of God.
we dont need to do good works to be a Christian, we do good works because we are Christian.
Post by: tenderfender on Sep 25, 2012 at 03:14 PM
remember na marami ang nagprophesy in His name, marami ang gumawa ng mabuti is God's name but never going to heaven...
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. --- Matthew 7:21
paano ung ganito ito sir?
merong "DOES THE WILL"-- so implied na you need to DO SOMETHING? kelangan may action / works?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 25, 2012 at 03:29 PM
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. --- Matthew 7:21
paano ung ganito ito sir?
merong "DOES THE WILL"-- so implied na you need to DO SOMETHING? kelangan may action / works?
because what they have is blind faith not 'faith that saves' na tinutukoy ni Paul.
In the 18th century lived a french tightrope walker by the name of Charles Blondin. On 30 June 1859, he tried walking on tightrope across niagara gorge. He managed to cross it and the crowd was really impressed. After that, he told the crowd "Do u believe that I can cross this gorge with a man on my back. And the crowd says " we believe!!!". Then Blondin says, who would like to be that man ??? suddenly all was quiet and no one comes forward.
Until one man did step forward. Blondin successfuly crossed the gorge back and forth with this man on his back.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Charles.Blondin.jpg)
Now, Who has truly believe that Blondin can crossed the gorge with a man on his back? Who has shown true faith with Blondin?
Same is true with christian faith. You profess to have faith but are you willing to gve up your life for it?
Your FAITH justifies your salvation, but your ACTION justifies your FAITH as what Abraham did when he is willing to sacrifice Isaac because he believed in God.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 25, 2012 at 03:49 PM
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6
Again, there are many things that is attributed to faith – like the example of one here about a sick child etc etc. What we are saying here is the FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION!
= = =
It all boils down to a Christian’s understanding of salvation – I hope some of you knew your verses:
(1) the author of salvation is Jesus
(2) the finisher of salvation is Jesus
Man did not initiate the first move of salvation. God sent His Son to die for his children – and then the HOLY SPIRIT went to action.
God did not assign to man the completion of his salvation – as suggested by some people here the we finish that salvation BY GOOD WORKS since FAITH alone is not enough.
If God is the one that makes salvation possible, and He is the one that will complete it – I do not know how much man can influence his own salvation! Then, they cite Heb 6:4-6. In fact, a similar verse exist in Romans 11:
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
= = =
The work of salvation is GOD’s alone – never partly God, and partly human. I will not try to convince people who do hold belief that they can contribute to their own salvation – as if they were tasked by GOD to COMPLETE their own SALVATION by their “GOOD WORKS”. Good luck anyway!
As said before, God sees the thought and intents of the heart. And lots of passages make the concept very clear – of course, there are some difficult passages that some “fabricators” will exploit to show otherwise, one of which is Heb 6:4-6. This is not new, and in fact same scenario was recorded in Galatians 2 when some Jewish Christians are propagating within the church the "GOOD WORKS (not BY FAITH ALONE)" thing!
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
So how can salvation, being the work of God, be a failure in a man? Otherwise, God can be portrayed as lacking somewhere to effect salvation. So, to me, with GOD at the helm of my salvation, I can NEVER lose my salvation. I took Jesus’ work in CALVARY as the total price for the SALVATION that was given to me – no more addition, and no more subtraction.
= = =
In the book of James, some faith that was shown there is not about SAVING FAITH, though some of them also refers to ACTION coupling SAVING FAITH.
You see, sin, in God’s sight, is not found in action. It is determined by the INTENT and PURPOSE of heart. Remember, JESUS made SIN easier to commit:
(1) Whoever looks at a woman committed adultery
(2) Whoever hates a brother committed murder
Sin starts in the thought (mind). Once sin thought is firmed in the mind, evil action follows! In the same way, SAVING FAITH starts in the acceptance in the thought – and once it is there, action follows (FRUITs of the Spirit). It is not a sinless life though, but the Bible provide a mechanism for repentance.
So here comes the TREE-FRUIT relationship. A pretentious TREE will never bear a different FRUIT other than what that tree should bear. A Christian will always bring forth FRUIT of the SPIRIT - it is a natural consequences of being a Christian.
How much forgiveness does God reserved for His saints? He told somebody in the gospel to forgive “SEVENTY TIME SEVEN” – so does that mean you have to record 490 forgiveness before you ignore such repentance? Nah! To some Bible scholars, the words is about “ALWAYS”! Always forgive.
= = =
Some superficial belief (some called this FAITH as well) of “pious” people is also portrayed in the Bible. When the Lord throws SEEDS of SALVATION, the seeds fell on 3 type of grounds:
(1) the stony ground
(2) the weeded ground
(3) the good ground
Only in the GOOD GROUND will the SEED of SALVATION prosper.
= = =
So, I will offer my remembrance of tackling Heb 6:4-6
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6
Note that the verse did not tell us anything about “TO RENEW THEM AGAIN UNTO SALVATION” as one here suggested.
Note the word: IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY,
The statement is similar in manner as one of our saying –
PAGPUTI NG UWAK, PAG-ITIM NG TAGAK
Of course you can always tell me it is possible in His sovereignty. But the statement is merely a SUPPOSITION – not necessarily a POSSIBILITY! Again, this is going back on what is your take about GOD’s work of SALVATION!
If you got a wrong notion of PUTTING something into the RECIPE of your own SALVATION – well, suit yourself then. The BIBLE simply did not say it that way.
= = =
Is this for real? Look at Nineveh where Jonah preached!
Nineveh is bound for destruction based on their deeds. However, it seems GOD has plans to rescue the city.
So HE commanded Jonah. Jonah understood so well – he knew GOD really wanted to save the city.
But Jonah has many alibis into obeying God’s command – go separate ways. The rest is history. God led Jonah to a number of mishaps until he preached to Nineveh, Nineveh repented and was spared.
Jonah is not happy – he is disobedient.
Christians will never see the happiness in this worl if they continue their disobedience. God has ultimate recipe for that as well like what happened to Ananias & Saphira in the book of Acts (1 Corinthians 5:5).
Post by: dpogs on Sep 25, 2012 at 03:57 PM
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. --- Matthew 7:21
paano ung ganito ito sir?
merong "DOES THE WILL"-- so implied na you need to DO SOMETHING? kelangan may action / works?
John 6:40 (NKJV) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
saving faith is not alone, saving faith produces good fruit, saving faith produces good works, saving faith produces obedience towards the will of God. it only means that those who are going to heaven are those who do the will of God. a Christian with genuine faith can only do the will of God. thus, Jesus only means that only these genuine Christian can enter the kingdom because they are the only one who can do the will of God.
kung ang basehan natin ay ang pagsunod sa 'will of God', aba eh walang makaksunod niyan kahit isa. there is none rightoues no not one. no one doeth good. all our righteousness ay maikukumpara lamang sa maduming basahan sa harapan ng Diyos.
Post by: barrister on Sep 25, 2012 at 04:05 PM
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. --- Matthew 7:21
paano ung ganito ito sir?
merong "DOES THE WILL"-- so implied na you need to DO SOMETHING? kelangan may action / works?
Ang labo, ano? ;)
kung ang basehan natin ay ang pagsunod sa 'will of God', aba eh walang makaksunod niyan kahit isa.
Walang makakasunod? Bakit naman wala?
...there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright... (Job 1:1)
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. (Gen. 6:9)
About The spouses Zechariah and Elizabeth:
6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. (Luke 1:6)
Note- that's ALL commands and decrees --- observing blamelessly.
Post by: tenderfender on Sep 25, 2012 at 04:23 PM
Ang labo, ano? ;)
un din nga ang mejo question mark pa sa akin sir while reading through the recent discussions :)
that verse directly quotes Jesus Christ Himself (vis a vis the writings of Paul and James)
hindi daw automatic passport to heaven na magsabi ka ng "Lord Lord" (maging believer) pero dapat gawin ang WILL.
pagkinonek naman ang WILL OF THE FATHER sa sinabi ni sir dpogs na:
John 6:40 (NKJV) "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
so ang WILL OF THE FATHER is to BELIEVE / HAVE FAITH IN JESUS.
"catch 22" nga ba ang tawag sa ganito?
Post by: JT on Sep 25, 2012 at 04:29 PM
un din nga ang mejo question mark pa sa akin sir while reading through the recent discussions :)
that verse directly quotes Jesus Christ Himself (vis a vis the writings of Paul and James)
hindi daw automatic passport to heaven na magsabi ka ng "Lord Lord" (maging believer) pero dapat gawin ang WILL.
pagkinonek naman ang WILL OF THE FATHER sa sinabi ni sir dpogs na:
so ang WILL OF THE FATHER is to BELIEVE / HAVE FAITH IN JESUS.
"catch 22" nga ba ang tawag sa ganito?
Isama mo pa itong nasa Philippians 2:12-13
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."
So paano na ???
Post by: barrister on Sep 25, 2012 at 04:41 PM
pagkinonek naman ang WILL OF THE FATHER sa sinabi ni sir dpogs na:
so ang WILL OF THE FATHER is to BELIEVE / HAVE FAITH IN JESUS.
"catch 22" nga ba ang tawag sa ganito?
No, hindi catch 22 yan. Ang tawag diyan, maling interpretation.
May mga salvation formula na talagang short cut ang presentation. Bakit? E kasi para sa mga baguhan yon. Para madaling maintindihan, simplified ang presentation.
Ito na siguro ang simplest form: 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)
Simpleng simple di ba? Believe, and you will be saved. Parang "faith alone"? :D No, kailangan makita natin ang sinaabi ng buong bible:
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. (James 2:17)
Bakit ganon? Sabi ng isa, believe and you will be saved. Tapos sabi ng isa, kailangan ng works. Alin ang tama?
Parehong tama. Yung una, simplifed version para sa mga baguhan. Pag may alam ka na sa salita ng Diyos, yung pangalawa na ang para sa iyo.
Parang ganito. Mag-enroll ka sa college of medicine para maging doktor ka. Simplified version yon, pero hindi mali. Kaya lang, ang intindi nila, mag-enroll ka lang sa college of medicine, OK ka na, basta magiging doktor ka kahit wala ka nang gawing iba pa. Kasi ang doktrina nila, "enroll alone." :D
Meron ba talagang ganon sa bible, yung simplified version para sa mga hindi pa marunong, tapos yung mabibigat na aral para sa mga may alam na?
Siyempre naman.
Ang tawag ni Pablo sa mga hindi pa maalam, mga "infants." Anong Word of God ang ipapakain ni Pablo sa mga sanggol? Siyempre gatas muna, hindi pa solid food:
1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. ... (1 Cor. 3:1-2)
============================
Madali namang mahalata ang may unawa sa Salita ng Diyos.
Naranasan ko rin noon yan. Yung pastor, daldal nang daldal, napakalabo naman ng sinasabi. Yun pala, simple lang ang kahulugan ng verses.
Kaya pala ang labo ng explanation ni pastor. Kasi hindi rin niya naintindihan ... ;)
Post by: tenderfender on Sep 25, 2012 at 04:50 PM
"theory + application = expert practitioner" ;)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 25, 2012 at 05:27 PM
faith first then work will manifest...
if work doesnt manifest... then your faith is dead (blind faith) - yan ang sinasabi ni James.
Isama mo pa itong nasa Philippians 2:12-13
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."
So paano na ???
work out... hind sinabing "work FOR your own salvation".
parang nag wowork out yan sa gym... kaya siya nagwoworkout para maging physically fit ang kanyang katawan... hidni siya magwoworkout para magkaroon siya ng katawan... o di kaya makumpleto ang kanyang katawan... meron na siyang katawan...
Post by: JT on Sep 25, 2012 at 05:36 PM
parang ganito yan...
faith first then work will manifest...
if work doesnt manifest... then your faith is dead (blind faith) - yan ang sinasabi ni James.
work out... hind sinabing "work FOR your own salvation".
parang nag wowork out yan sa gym... kaya siya nagwoworkout para maging physically fit ang kanyang katawan... hidni siya magwoworkout para magkaroon siya ng katawan... o di kaya makumpleto ang kanyang katawan... meron na siyang katawan...
So what happens pag di nag workout? Ano ba talaga yung work na kailangan?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 25, 2012 at 06:05 PM
So what happens pag di nag workout?
he/she will remain as a babe in christ...
1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. ... (1 Cor. 3:1-2)
pag sinabing work out... you grow as a christian with fear and treambling - zealousness... dont stay as a chiild/infants in Christ... you need to eat (Word of God) to grow, you need to work out - do good things to reflect as a Christian to others, you need to be strong because this world is full of wickedness... that is working out my salvation... i am not working for my salvation... i am working out my salvation with fear and trembling... i am building my testimony (my faith, my salvation) with zealousness.
naaalala ko kasi sabi ng lola ko... kapag hindi raw ako gumawa ng mabuti pupunta ako ng impiyerno... tapos sinabi ng pari namin na kapag naniwala ako pero hindi ako gumawa ng mabuti pupunta ako ng impiyerno... sa sobrang inis ko naging atheist ako... kasi araw araw nagkakasala ako... araw araw puwde akong pumunta ng impiyerno...
kaya nga tanong ko sa sarili ko: kung kailangan kong gumawa ng mabuti para mapunta ng langit... kailan matatapos ang ganito... kailan ko masasabi na my work is good enough for me to say na i kept the faith?
Post by: barrister on Sep 25, 2012 at 06:52 PM
kaya nga tanong ko sa sarili ko: kung kailangan kong gumawa ng mabuti para mapunta ng langit... kailan matatapos ang ganito... kailan ko masasabi na my work is good enough for me to say na i kept the faith?
Kailan matatapos? Simple lang. Pag malapit ka nang mamatay.
Kasi kahit natanggap mo na ang kaligtasan, puwede pa ring maiwala ito, at pag naiwala, hindi na puwedeng maibalik uli:
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. ... (Heb. 6:4-6)
Hindi tayo nakakatiyak ngayon mismo na mapupunta tayo sa langit, kasi hindi rin natin tiyak kung makakagawa pa tayo in the future ng kasalanang ikamamatay .
Dahil dito, hindi rin natin dapat sabihin agad ngayon na sigurado na tayo sa langit. Pag sinabi mong "Once Saved, Always Saved," ngayon pa lang, sinasabi mong sigurado ka na sa langit, which is not biblical.
Kaya nga si Pablo, noong sa tingin niya ay malapit na siyang mamatay, doon lang niya nasabing, "I have kept the faith":
6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Tim. 4:6-8)
E noong sa tingin ni Pablo ay malayo pa ang kamatayan niya, ano ang sabi niya?
10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:10-14)
Notice that Paul clearly says, "I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it." Because it is an ongoing process. And it is not an easy process --- that is why Paul said he was "press(ing) on" and "straining toward what is ahead."
Si Pablo, nasabi lang niyang mapupunta siya sa langit nang malapit na siyang mamatay. Ang "Once Saved, Always Saved," ngayon pa lang, langit na raw sila. Yabang naman non, talo pa si Pablo ... ;)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 25, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Kailan matatapos? Simple lang. Pag malapit ka nang mamatay.
Kasi kahit natanggap mo na ang kaligtasan, puwede pa ring maiwala ito, at pag naiwala, hindi na puwedeng maibalik uli:
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. ... (Heb. 6:4-6)
Hindi tayo nakakatiyak ngayon mismo na mapupunta tayo sa langit, kasi hindi rin natin tiyak kung makakagawa pa tayo in the future ng kasalanang ikamamatay .
Dahil dito, hindi rin natin dapat sabihin agad ngayon na sigurado na tayo sa langit. Pag sinabi mong "Once Saved, Always Saved," ngayon pa lang, sinasabi mong sigurado ka na sa langit, which is not biblical.
Kaya nga si Pablo, noong sa tingin niya ay malapit na siyang mamatay, doon lang niya nasabing, "I have kept the faith":
6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Tim. 4:6-8)
E noong sa tingin ni Pablo ay malayo pa ang kamatayan niya, ano ang sabi niya?
10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:10-14)
Notice that Paul clearly says, "I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it." Because it is an ongoing process. And it is not an easy process --- that is why Paul said he was "press(ing) on" and "straining toward what is ahead."
Si Pablo, nasabi lang niyang mapupunta siya sa langit nang malapit na siyang mamatay. Ang "Once Saved, Always Saved," ngayon pa lang, langit na raw sila. Yabang naman non, talo pa si Pablo ... ;)
ah... hindi pala nagkakalayo sa sinasabi ng roman catholics.
Post by: Dilbert7 on Sep 26, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Isama mo pa itong nasa Philippians 2:12-13
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."
So paano na ???
Take note of the phrase WORK OUT - it is not WORK FOR!
And see the remedy of God in the showing of the FRUITS of the SPIRIT - it is God who works in you both TO WILL and to do HIS GOOD PLEASURE!
This does not imply you add your GOOD WORKS to your faith so you can be saved!
= = =
Further, FAITH is not saying "You are God, or I believe you" - everybody can say that, even Satan can do that. FAITH that exist in the mind of man, as a result of divine enlightenment is much more than that.
= = =
Any lawyer can win their debate according to their understanding - for somehow, the reasoning is illogical to them (malabo). This is not surprising - even in Jesus time, the lawyers knowledgeable in the Laws & the Prophets, failed to understand "everything" about Jesus. Even PAUL himself, being a lawyer, can debate everybody, and win his arguments.
Only until his mind was opened by divine intervention did he appreciated and connected the dots of the old testament.
In the same way, divine intervention in human to plant FAITH unto SALVATION is also necessary.
To me (as I appreciated my Bible), it is impossible for man, BY HIMSELF, to know how corrupt he is before a HOLY God. Man will still insist that he can do something right before God to merit GOD attention toward Him.
It is a good example to cite Noah, of Elijah, or Abe into the picture. People can only see the outward - God determines the inside! This is similar with PAUL, the intervention of GOD to the human thinking will cause a human being to do God's bidding.
Thus, God's word is consistent that SAVING FAITH is always coupled by good works (as we see it humanly) - but far from making GOOD WORKS as contributory to SALVATION. That's a NO NO!
Nowhere was it said that Noah, Abe, David, all Bible heroes were all saved because of both FAITH and GOOD WORKS! In Hebrews 11, it showed that FAITH is the cause of all the GOOD WORKS of those GREAT MEN OF FAITH!
So these people preaching FAITH plus GOOD WORKS are themselves never sure about their own standing - for how much GOOD WORKS is ENOUGH - especially if a lawyer is saying that "Obedience is unto all the Law" like the case of some of the great heroes of Bible?
Romans 3:23 can not contradict the OLD testament. Even those in the OT who "lived a holy life in accordance to the whole law" like Job and Noah have sinned!
= = =
Nowhere in the Bible can you find that salvation can be lost! All that the Bible said is about the impossibility of a certain event - "to fall away, and to be brought back to repentance". SALVATION was never mentioned as lost! People just make so many conclusion too far just to prove their point.
= = =
Actually, hindi lang catholics ang humahawak ng principle ng FAITH + GOOD works = salvation. Lahat ng religion, yan ang tema! and this should not be a surprise. Same substance - just different names & presentation!
When PAUL said "I have kept the faith" - is not tantamount to saying "I HAVE KEPT MY SALVATION" - this is an absurd interpretation! IMHO, this is the confusion of their semantics. Neither did it mean "I HAVE SUFFICIENT GOOD WORKS TO ATTACH TO MY FAITH TO MERIT SALVATION" - that's how they want it interpreted.
Post by: barrister on Sep 26, 2012 at 01:31 AM
Thus, God's word is consistent that SAVING FAITH is always coupled by good works (as we see it humanly) - but far from making GOOD WORKS as contributory to SALVATION. That's a NO NO!
Paano raw? Faith is always coupled with good works, pero good works are not contributory to salvation? Magkasama dapat yung dalawa, pero walang silbi yung isa?
Labo talaga ... :P Kung magkasama dapat yung dalawa, e di pareho silang importante.
==========================================
Faith without good works is dead:
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. (James 2: 26)
Faith and good works should go together, because faith is made complete by good works:
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. (James 2: 22)
Faith and good works should go together because faith without good works is useless. Therefore, you are considered righteous by your good works. You are not considered righteous by faith alone:
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? ... 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. (James 2: 20; 24)
Yan ang malinaw ... ;)
Post by: JT on Sep 26, 2012 at 03:42 AM
Hebrews 6:4-6 verse is quite difficult – but will in no way invalidate the clear truth in the Bible that salvation is by faith as clear as Ephesians 2:8-9 declaration!
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame." Hebrews 6:4-6
Again, there are many things that is attributed to faith – like the example of one here about a sick child etc etc. What we are saying here is the FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION!
Actually the key in understanding this verse is considering to whom Paul is addressing it. This was for Jews who has converted from Judaism into Christianity. We know Judaism has rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah (and as Son of God) so they continue with Moses Law. FALLING AWAY here refers to falling away from FAITH and not from SIN. REPENTANCE in greek is METANOIA which means CHANGE OF MIND. Because for salvation by grace all sins are forgiven, past present and future. Here Paul is referring to Jews who became christians then went back to Judaism which means they have to again reject Jesus redemptive work on the cross, reject salvation by grace. And this is the unpardonable sin in which God brings condemnation already.
It is really interesting how far this will go further as both "FAITH ALONE" and "FAITH+WORKS" group has scriptures to backup their claims.
Both parties has been using the same scriptures again and again. And this has been the same argument between christians from the very beginning.
For me, both are correct as both are scriptural and the bible says the scripture cannot be broken. But before I layout my argument, I just want to hear for more post hoping someone will find the scripture that will reconcile both and get to the bottomline of this.
One of my keypoint is that it is UNBELIEF that will lead you to hell, not sin.
Post by: barrister on Sep 26, 2012 at 02:23 PM
by: JOHN FOLLAIN
From: The Sunday Times
September 24, 2012 12:00AM
Karen King, Hollis professor of divinity at Harvard University, argues that the brownish-yellow fragment of a book in ancient Egyptian Coptic is from the 4th century and the earliest known proof that some early Christians believed that Jesus was married. She christened it "the gospel of Jesus's wife".
The discovery, she says, "should lead us to rethink how Christianity understood sexuality and marriage in a very positive way. And to see that the notion that celibacy and virginity and the repudiation of pleasure in marriage - to see marriage as solely for the production of children alone - that those positions were ... not the only positions in early Christianity".
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/papyrus-fragment-quoting-wife-of-jesus-raises-questions-for-christianity/story-fnb64oi6-1226479776707
Post by: lisa_mae on Sep 26, 2012 at 02:39 PM
- Religion
- Money
Post by: dpogs on Sep 26, 2012 at 02:56 PM
Based on how you read the Bible, can you consider yoursel as of today as saint? or will you allow someone (for example apostle Paul) to call you a saint? we know that a saint in Biblical term (hindi iyong katulad ng sa RC) are simply those who are son of God.
How will you measure that what you are doing is good enough to keep your salvation?
How about a sudden death (wag naman sana), for any reason the cause of your death is instant, no time to confess everything, what will be the status of your salvation?
Post by: barrister on Sep 26, 2012 at 04:17 PM
How will you measure that what you are doing is good enough to keep your salvation?
Jesus said:
6 ... I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.(Jn. 14: 6)
You get to the Father through Jesus Christ. That's why Christ calls Himself "the way." And how does Christ become "the way"?
Christ is the way by which we should walk. So if He is the road, you walk along that road. You don't stray outside of the path where the road leads.
And what is this road or path? Christ is talking about following His commandments. You follow His commandments, and you follow the path towards the Father. Very simple, isn't it?
Clearly, therefore, it's your obligation to know what those commandments are. Then it's going to be your obligation to follow those commandments.
So how do you measure if your works are good enough? You measure your works against the commandments of Christ. If you're following His commandments, then you measure up. Otherwise, you don't measure up.
What if you honestly thought that you measured up, but you were in fact mistaken in your estimations? God will decide, not you, because God knows if your mistake was an honest one or not.
Sa Once Saved Always Saved, bakit aalamin mo pa ang commandments ni Kristo? Di ba ligtas ka na kahit ano pa ang gawin mo? Huwag mo nang alamin ang commandments, kasi kahit ano pa ang gawin mo, ligtas ka pa rin.
Meron namang interpretation, may good works din daw, pero automatic daw ang good works na yon pag ligtas ka na. Kung automatic ang good works, hindi na kailangang alamin ang commandments ni Kristo para sumunod sa commandments na iyon. Bakit pa, e kahit ano ang gawin ko, sigurado namang "good" yon kasi automatic nga ang good works pag ligtas ka.
That's how absurd the OSAS doctrine becomes, when the truth of the matter is that following the right path is not only required, it's also very difficult. That is why the bible says:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Mt. 7:13-14)
It's not going to be an easy thing to do, as if being saved meant that good works come so easily that they arise automatically. In fact, it's going to be a war-like struggle:
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph. 6:11-12)
That is how you work out your own salvation. Know Christ's commandments and follow them. Only you can do it for yourself, because you have free will. If you want to do it, well and good; if not, then it's up to you.
Does that mean Christ's sacrifice was useless? Of course not. Whereas without Christ's sacrifice, you won't get to heaven, no matter what you do. With Christ's sacrifice, salvation is now possible, as long as you yourself work and follow His commandments. That's how important Christ's death on the cross was, yet it still doesn't mean that we are no longer required to do good works.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 26, 2012 at 04:32 PM
I won't answer questions 1 and 3, but I can discuss question 2. Once you know how I answer #2, you will know how I answer questions 1 and 3.
Jesus said:
6 ... I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.(Jn. 14: 6)
You get to the Father through Jesus Christ. That's why Christ calls Himself "the way." And how does Christ become "the way"?
Christ is the way by which we should walk. So if He is the road, you walk along that road. You don't stray outside of the path where the road leads.
And what is this road or path? Christ is talking about following His commandments. You follow His commandments, and you follow the path towards the Father. Very simple, isn't it?
Clearly, therefore, it's your obligation to know what those commandments are. Then it's going to be your obligation to follow those commandments.
So how do you measure if you're works are good enough? You measure your works against the commandments of Christ. If you're following His commandments, then you measure up. Otherwise, you don't measure up.
What if you honestly thought that you measured up, but you were in fact mistaken in your estimations? God will decide, not you, because God knows if your mistake was an honest one or not.
Sa Once Saved Always Saved, bakit aalamin mo pa ang commandments ni Kristo? Di ba ligtas ka na kahit ano pa ang gawin mo? Huwag mo nang alamin ang commandments, kasi kahit ano pa ang gawin mo, ligtas ka pa rin.
Meron namang interpretation, may good works din daw, pero automatic daw ang good works na yon pag ligtas ka na. Kung automatic ang good works, hindi na kailangang alamin ang commandments ni Kristo para sumunod sa commandments na iyon. Bakit pa, e kahit ano ang gawin ko, sigurado namang "good" yon kasi automatic nga ang good works pag ligtas ka.
That's how absurd the OSAS doctrine becomes, when the truth of the matter is that following the right path is not only required, it's also very difficult. That is why the bible says:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Mt. 7:13-14)
It's not going to be an easy thing to do, as if being saved meant that good works come so easily that they arise automatically. In fact, it's going to be a war-like struggle:
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph. 6:11-12)
That is how you work out your own salvation. Know Christ's commandments and follow them. Only you can do it for yourself, because you have free will. If you want to do it, well and good; if not, then it's up to you.
Does that mean Christ's sacrifice was useless? Of course not. Whereas without Christ's sacrifice, you won't get to heaven, no matter what you do. With Christ's sacrifice, salvation is now possible, as long as you yourself work and follow His commandments. That's how important Christ's death on the cross was, yet it still doesn't mean that we are no longer required to do good works.
Got it. Thanks.
Post by: JT on Sep 28, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Paul says,
"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . " (Rom. 3:20)
"for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28)
"For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3)
"Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . " (Rom. 5:1)
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
James says,
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24)
" . . . so also faith without works is dead," (James 2:26).
So which is it? Are we justified by faith or by works or do we need both? If faith+works then, what is the work required? What to workout for our faith?
We always qoute what Paul or James says. Now pls hear what Peter has to say in 2 Peter 1:1-11 (NKJV) pertaining to works related to salvation:
"Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your FAITH virtue, to VIRTUE knowledge, to KNOWLEDGE self-control, to SELF-CONTROL perseverance, to PERSEVERANCE godliness, to GODLINESS brotherly kindness, and to BROTHERLY KINDNESS LOVE. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. FOR HE WHO LACKS THESE THINGS IS SHORTSIGHTED, EVEN TO BLINDNESS, AND FORGOTTEN THAT HE WAS CLEANSED FROM HIS OLD SINS. [<-- this is where the UNBELIEF starts where christians (even leaders or elders) has the tendency to fall out of salvation by God's grace and back to salvation by works.]
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
So although FAITH alone merits us SALVATION, Peter is saying we have effort (WORKS) needed in order to SECURE it.
All the works we need to do are covered here (in v5-7) not for salvation but to secure God's calling and election. Note also that it is not by outward BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION but by inward CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT.
How to develop this Godly character is another topic hope to have next time. But basically we need REPENTANCE (change of mind) and all of God's GRACE, not just for SAVING but also for RESTORING, for SUSTAINING and for TRANSFORMING as well.
Romans 12:2 says "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
And why do we need to secure it? Because the devil will do everything to keep you out of agreement with God. To make you forget or doubt the promise of Romans 10:9-10 (NKJV) "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Consider the temptation with Eve. Why did the snake tempted Eve to eat the fruit? Why not tempt to kill Adam or blaspheme God? It is because the agreement with God is not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The same is very true with us now. The same schemes from the devil to give us lies, confusion and doubt in our hearts and minds because these are the real battlegrounds in this spiritual battle we are on. The whole armor of God mentioned in Ephesians 6:11 is to protect these two. Our UNBELIEF is his main goal.
Thats also why now there are so many sickness affecting mental health (eg down syndrome, authism, schizo, etc) because the devil doesnt want us to have a sound mind. As well as many religions and idealogies. Many mind conditioning like yoga, meditations,etc. To keep us away from this truth.
The bible got so many things to reveal on this and these are just keypoints.
So for now I close with Ephesians 2:8-10 (NKJV) and we dont missed out v10 in which Paul is saying ...
"8 For by GRACE you have been saved through FAITH, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared beforehand THAT WE SHOULD WALK IN THEM.
Hope it clarifies. God bless.
Post by: sardaukar on Sep 29, 2012 at 08:08 AM
Post by: frootloops on Oct 24, 2012 at 09:55 PM
October 24, 2012 7:19pm
(Updated 8:56 p.m.) Manila Archbishop Luis Antonio Tagle will be among the six non-European Roman Catholic prelates who will join the Vatican's College of Cardinals in November, Pope Benedict XVI announced Wednesday.
At 55, Tagle will become the world's youngest cardinal and has been touted as a future papal contender. Cardinals advise the pontiff and elect his successor among themselves upon his death. The newest group of appointees will bring the total number of cardinals world-wide to 120.
The other new cardinals will be the American James Michael Harvey, Lebanon's Bechara Boutros Rahi, India's Baselios Cleemis, Nigeria's John Onaiyekan and Colombia's Ruben Salazar Gomez.
Pope Benedict XVI announced this Wednesday in a move which may affect the election of the future pope.
At the end of the weekly general audience, Benedict said he would be appointing cardinals in a surprise consistory, the second to be held this year.
The college, the elite body that advises the pontiff and elects his successor upon his death, is currently heavily weighted in favor of Europe.
Full Story :
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/279536/news/nation/at-55-manila-archbishop-tagle-to-become-world-s-youngest-cardinal
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Post by: bananabond on Oct 26, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 26, 2012 at 08:58 PM
I'm pretty sure most if not all of these cardinals are hardcore conservatives. They seldom promote anyone who's even the least bit liberal.
Is there any other way to follow Jesus? Are your actions based on Jesus' examples?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 26, 2012 at 09:13 PM
Is there any other way to follow Jesus? Are your actions based on Jesus' examples?
My way of following Jesus does not involve coddling child molesters, subjugating women and condemning homosexuals.
The Jesus I know railed against religious hypocrisy and institutionalized religion of His time (the Pharisees and the Scribes, etc.). He was basically a liberal socialist.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 27, 2012 at 12:38 AM
My way of following Jesus does not involve coddling child molesters, subjugating women and condemning homosexuals.
The Jesus I know railed against religious hypocrisy and institutionalized religion of His time (the Pharisees and the Scribes, etc.). He was basically a liberal socialist.
Same Jesus Christ in the bible? ;)
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 27, 2012 at 04:30 AM
My way of following Jesus does not involve coddling child molesters, subjugating women and condemning homosexuals.
The Jesus I know railed against religious hypocrisy and institutionalized religion of His time (the Pharisees and the Scribes, etc.). He was basically a liberal socialist.
You have already judged these people beforehand! Are you a judge?
Post by: thebat on Oct 27, 2012 at 03:26 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 27, 2012 at 07:08 PM
You have already judged these people beforehand! Are you a judge?
I will throw my question back to you: Who are *they* to judge who are sinners and what is sinful? Who are *they* to try and dictate who we use our genitals? Who are *they* to control what we think? Who are *they* to say that they have the moral authority to dictate public policy? Who are *they* to lecture us on morality when the institution they serve is rife with corruption and perversion?
Post by: barrister on Oct 27, 2012 at 07:11 PM
How come ang tawag sa catholic priest ay "father?" When and how did this address start?
The origin of the title can no longer be traced, but it has been customary for Catholics to call priests "father" ever since their denomination started. I'm aware that Catholics insist that their group started in 33 AD, and that it was founded by Christ Himself, but I estimate that their group actually started around 400 AD.
Catholic Priest Fr. William Saunders claims that the title was used even before 400 AD:
Since the earliest times of our Church, we have used the title "Father" for religious leaders. Bishops, who are the shepherds of the local Church community and the authentic teachers of the faith, were given the title "Father." Actually, until about the year 400, a bishop was called "papa" for Father; this title was then restricted solely to addressing the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, and in English was rendered "pope."
In an early form of his rule, St. Benedict (d. c. 547) designated the title to spiritual confessors, since they were the guardians of souls. Moreover, the word "abbot," denoting the leader in faith of the monastic community, is derived from the word abba, the Aramaic Hebrew word for father, but in the very familiar sense of "daddy."
Later, in the Middle Ages, the term "father" was used to address the mendicant friars—like the Franciscans and Dominicans—since by their preaching, teaching and charitable works they cared for the spiritual and physical needs of all of God's children. In more modern times, the heads of male religious communities, or even those who participate in ecumenical councils such as Vatican II, are given the title "father." In the English-speaking world, addressing all priests as "Father" has become customary.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WHYFATHR.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WHYFATHR.htm)
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 27, 2012 at 10:18 PM
I will throw my question back to you: Who are *they* to judge who are sinners and what is sinful? Who are *they* to try and dictate who we use our genitals? Who are *they* to control what we think? Who are *they* to say that they have the moral authority to dictate public policy? Who are *they* to lecture us on morality when the institution they serve is rife with corruption and perversion?
Eh ikaw, sino ka bang nag-lelecture? Eh kung sinabi ko na maraming tao ang nagmomolestya na galing sa pinanggagalingan mong trabaho eh di lumalabas nagmomolestya ka rin. Huwag kang magbintang baka ikaw din ang mabintangan. Hindi ba madalas na iyung nagbibintang siya rin ganun ang ginagawa. Ayaw lang niya pahalata.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 27, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Eh ikaw, sino ka bang nag-lelecture? Eh kung sinabi ko na maraming tao ang nagmomolestya na galing sa pinanggagalingan mong trabaho eh di lumalabas nagmomolestya ka rin. Huwag kang magbintang baka ikaw din ang mabintangan. Hindi ba madalas na iyung nagbibintang siya rin ganun ang ginagawa. Ayaw lang niya pahalata.
Of course, I know that there are child molesters from all walks of life. Hindi lang pari. As I said before that what makes the Catholic Church scandal heinous was the fact that the Church, as an institution, opted to cover up the crimes of their priests and just move them from parish to parish causing even MORE harm to MORE children. This went on for years and years and years. Had they did the right thing and turned over the offending priests to the police and defrock them if convicted, then it wouldn't be as big a scandal.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 28, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 28, 2012 at 05:30 AM
Of course, I know that there are child molesters from all walks of life. Hindi lang pari. As I said before that what makes the Catholic Church scandal heinous was the fact that the Church, as an institution, opted to cover up the crimes of their priests and just move them from parish to parish causing even MORE harm to MORE children. This went on for years and years and years. Had they did the right thing and turned over the offending priests to the police and defrock them if convicted, then it wouldn't be as big a scandal.
Now there are 10 commandments which can be broken down to love of Man and love of God. There is one that says do not bear false witness against thy neighbor. When you accuse a group of people but fail to single out (and prove) who the offender really is what does that say about you?
By your logic since people of authority also commit sin or at fault, what authority do they have over us? In that case, we should not be following any laws because people of authority also commit sins or at fault.
Since you are a sinner (I am saying this in the basis that no one is free from sin except God), what authority do you have that people should do this or that? Do you even have one by your own logic?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 28, 2012 at 11:28 AM
When you accuse a group of people but fail to single out (and prove) who the offender really is what does that say about you?
What I say about the Catholic Church is true. Haven't you been reading the news?
Quote
By your logic since people of authority also commit sin or at fault, what authority do they have over us? In that case, we should not be following any laws because people of authority also commit sins or at fault.
The government does not claim a direct line from God. The government (and other authorities) do not claim infallibility. We also have the power to vote them out if they commit sins. We do not have such a power in the Church. The Church quashes any criticism lobbied against them with WE SAY GOD SAID SO AND IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!
Quote
Since you are a sinner (I am saying this in the basis that no one is free from sin except God), what authority do you have that people should do this or that? Do you even have one by your own logic?
I don't claim any authority to tell people what to do. If you wanna follow the Catholic Church, fine by me. Just tell the Church to stay the hell away from sticking its nose in the Philippine government and affecting public policy.
I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that Catholic priests like to give people advice on marriage and telling people what to do with their sexuality since they're celibate single men. It's like vegetarians giving people advice on how to cook and eat meat.
Post by: barrister on Oct 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM
What's the history of the "sign of the cross" action before a prayer?
I assume that you're asking about Catholicism?
The origin of the sign of the cross is so ancient that it can no longer be traced. Earliest historical records mentioning the practice date to circa 300 AD.
The sign of the cross is not biblical, but old habits seem to die hard. Protestants ostensibly reject the sign of the cross, since they like to reject anything associated with Catholicism. Yet Martin Luther himself did not reject its use, and Lutheranism never officially abandoned the practice.
For a sect that declares the bible to be the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, and the only norm for Christian teaching, it's puzzling why they can't seem to officially get rid of the sign of the cross. :D
Wikipedia says:
During the 19th and early 20th centuries it was largely in disuse until the liturgical renewal movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, the sign of the cross has become fairly commonplace among Lutherans at worship. The sign of the cross is now customary in the Divine Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Service_(Lutheran)).[12][13] Rubrics in Contemporary Lutheran worship manuals, including Evangelical Lutheran Worship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Worship)[14] and Lutheran Service Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Service_Book),[15] provide for making the sign of the cross at certain points in the liturgy. Most places are the same as the Roman Catholic practice, such as at the trinitarian formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitarian_formula), the benediction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benediction), at the consecration of the Eucharist, and following reciting the Nicene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed) or Apostles' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed)Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed).
Devotional use of the sign of the cross among Lutherans also includes after receiving the Host and Chalice in the Eucharist, following Holy Absolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Absolution). Sometimes there is also holy water font (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_water_font) or baptismal font (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_font) at the entrance of the church, where they may dip their fingers in it and make the sign of the cross upon entering.
...Methodist churches, such as the United Methodist Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church), are essentially a product of the Protestant Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation).[16] and so the sign of the cross is generally uncommon in a Methodist service (especially as compared to an Anglican service or a Catholic Mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Mass)). John Wesley, the principle leader of the early Methodists, prepared a revision of The Book of Common Prayer for Methodist use called The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America which does instruct the minister to make the sign of the cross on the forehead of children just after they have been baptized.[17] Making the sign of the cross at baptism is retained in the current Book of Worship, and widely practiced (sometimes with oil).[18] Furthermore, on Ash Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Wednesday) the sign of the cross is almost always applied by the elder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elder_(Methodism)) to the foreheads of the laity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity).[19] The liturgy for healing and wholeness, which is becoming more commonly practiced, calls for the pastor to make the sign of the cross with oil upon the foreheads of those seeking healing[20]. Whether or not a Methodist uses the sign for private prayer is a personal choice, and is encouraged by the bishops of the United Methodist Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church).[21] Some United Methodists also perform the sign before and after receiving Holy Communion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Communion), and some ministers also perform the sign when blessing the congregation at the end of the sermon or service.[22]
And why do you have to say "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" before and after prayer?
You don't have to say it.
In Mt. 6, Jesus taught us how to pray. Sabi Niya: "This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, ..."
Meron bang "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" doon? Wala naman, di ba? ;)
Even in Catholicism, the sign of the cross and the recitation of "In the name of..." are not required before and/or after prayer. Yes, they are traditional practices, but they are not requirements.
In Catholicism, the recitation of "In the name of..." is not just an intro/outro of prayer, but is actually a prayer itself. They consider it to be the most basic prayer, and should be the first prayer that a very young child learns.
Post by: bass_nut on Oct 28, 2012 at 03:26 PM
would you mind commenting on the highlighted part of brother Mel's comment ? thanks in advance ;)
Now there are 10 commandments which can be broken down to love of Man and love of God. There is one that says do not bear false witness against thy neighbor. When you accuse a group of people but fail to single out (and prove) who the offender really is what does that say about you?
what does that say about you, Klaus Weasley ?
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 28, 2012 at 04:48 PM
What I say about the Catholic Church is true. Haven't you been reading the news?
Like what bass_nut has said, you did not answer the question about you blaming people. Maybe you do not realize you are also accusing me and any member of the Catholic Church. The commandment is very clear "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".
Can we interpret your silence on this matter as a tacit approval?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 28, 2012 at 06:30 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 28, 2012 at 07:22 PM
There is a saying that we will be judged by how we judge our fellow human beings. Since you continually bear false witness (by your silent tacit approval), do not complain if people accuse you falsely. Also since it is evident that forgiveness has no meaning for you, do not complain when people do not forgive you.
Lastly, before you accuse make sure you have evidence. As with any court of law make sure it is firsthand evidence. Otherwise it would appear (and it does) that you are just spreading rumors (bearing false witness).
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 28, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Ah, now I know what you mean.
Yes, I know that most priests do not molest children and are perfectly decent human beings overall. I know that the Catholic Church have done good works and there are good people working within it.
But it is still a HUMAN institution and like ANY human institution, it is also FLAWED. It should NOT be above criticism and disagreement. I have a lot of problems with the Catholic Church just like I have a lot of problems with the Philippine government and Filipino society. There are times when I want to say THE HELL WITH IT and leave all of them altogether and become totally agnostic/atheist expat in another country.
Personally, I think the Catholic Church should marry gays, allow artificial contraception, lighten up a bit on abortion and divorce, rethink its position on sexuality in general, allow women to be ordained and allow their priests to get married. Only then I think the Catholic Church can survive through the 21st century. The Philippines is one of few countries the Catholic Church still wields some power and influence which is why they're so stubborn on stuff like the RH Bill and divorce.
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 29, 2012 at 06:19 AM
Ah, now I know what you mean.
Yes, I know that most priests do not molest children and are perfectly decent human beings overall. I know that the Catholic Church have done good works and there are good people working within it.
But it is still a HUMAN institution and like ANY human institution, it is also FLAWED. It should NOT be above criticism and disagreement. I have a lot of problems with the Catholic Church just like I have a lot of problems with the Philippine government and Filipino society. There are times when I want to say THE HELL WITH IT and leave all of them altogether and become totally agnostic/atheist expat in another country.
Personally, I think the Catholic Church should marry gays, allow artificial contraception, lighten up a bit on abortion and divorce, rethink its position on sexuality in general, allow women to be ordained and allow their priests to get married. Only then I think the Catholic Church can survive through the 21st century. The Philippines is one of few countries the Catholic Church still wields some power and influence which is why they're so stubborn on stuff like the RH Bill and divorce.
And, why should the Catholic Church listen to you? Per your own logic you do not have any authority.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 29, 2012 at 01:48 PM
And, why should the Catholic Church listen to you? Per your own logic you do not have any authority.
I'm not the only one saying it though. A lot of people are saying it including some of the more liberal priests, bishops, cardinals and nuns.
The problem of course is that most if not all the ones that get promoted and have real power in the Church hierarchy are all very conservative since the Pope only promotes those types of people. These men who get promoted usually lead very cloistered, sheltered lives and have very little idea of how the outside world sees them. Some of them barely even interact with or have any type of relationship with a woman who's not relative or a nun. That's why a lot of people are shocked and bothered by the things that they sometimes say or do because they truly have NO IDEA how bad it sounds like from an outsider. It's like the world changed around them and they either have no idea or they refuse to change with it.
You should read the article about this Italian cardinal who said in his death bed he fears for the Catholic Church because of this practice. It will not survive the 21st Century if it keeps digging its heals in the past and refusing to progress. In many ways, I think the Catholic Church has even regressed.
I know what I say is very offensive and very frightening to you since you truly believe that in order to go to heaven and see your dead loved ones again is to follow all the Church's teachings to the letter and anything that contradicts that can deprive you of a good afterlife.
Post by: bass_nut on Oct 29, 2012 at 04:33 PM
I know what I say is very offensive and very frightening to you since you truly believe that in order to go to heaven and see your dead loved ones again is to follow all the Church's teachings to the letter and anything that contradicts that can deprive you of a good afterlife.
since you feel you are an expert, so how should it be ?
any actual experience regarding good afterlife, Klaus Weasley ?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 29, 2012 at 04:39 PM
since you feel you are an expert, so how should it be ?
any actual experience regarding good afterlife, Klaus Weasley ?
We actually do not know for a fact if there is an afterlife.
Which is why we should stop worrying and try to live our lives the best we could and try not to bother with things that don't affect us directly (like the sex lives of other people). It's as simple as that.
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 29, 2012 at 05:21 PM
About the story of the dying Cardinal, did it occur to you that this particular person was not completely telling the truth and was in fact lying? Maybe he felt betrayed when a position he was expecting was given to another Cardinal. I suggest you take stories with a grain of salt. Many stories are written tilting towards lies or half truths specially by people who feel betrayed or wronged.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 29, 2012 at 10:09 PM
@Klaus, why do you always highlight negative stories concerning the Catholic Church? By your own admission many priests are good. Why not write about the good things the Catholic Church does?
Because the Catholic Church, particularly in the Philippines, positions themselves as the moral guardians of the people, trying to affect public policy on things like the RH Bill and legalization of divorce. They're free to express their opinions but they should not try and block things in the legislative level through threats of excommunication and political endorsements. It's DISGUSTING. That is why I say, who in God's name are they to impose their morality on everyone, even non-Catholics or even Catholics who may disagree with them? Anong paki nila sa mga mag-asawang gusto mag-condom o mag-pills while they have protected and coddled child molesting priests?
I wouldn't be mad at them if they just kept it in the pulpit and nothing else. But they've placed themselves in the public discourse and therefore must be criticized and opposed as such. Tell the Catholic Church to trust the Filipino people and respect the separation of Church and State and let the RH Bill and divorce bill pass and I'll stop smearing their good name which isn't really necessary because they've done a good job at doing that themselves.
Quote
About the story of the dying Cardinal, did it occur to you that this particular person was not completely telling the truth and was in fact lying? Maybe he felt betrayed when a position he was expecting was given to another Cardinal. I suggest you take stories with a grain of salt. Many stories are written tilting towards lies or half truths specially by people who feel betrayed or wronged.
Why would a CARDINAL lie in his DEATH BED? I thought you LOOOOOOOVED priests and think they're sooooo perfect because they're like Jesus or something.
Post by: frootloops on Oct 30, 2012 at 03:13 AM
Father Guido Sarducci explains what happens when you die.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=241391
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 30, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Nakalimutan mo na ba ang mga salita mo na humans are flawed?
Suggest ko balikan mo mga salita mo para hindi nagagamit iyung mga sinabi mo kontra sa iyo.
@frootloops, hindi ko ma-view iyung link. Meron pa bang txt ito? Dami kasing bina block dito sa China eh.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Since afterlife was discussed...ice breaker muna ha guys... :)
Father Guido Sarducci explains what happens when you die.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=241391
$0.35. Haha!
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM
@Klaus, natawa naman ako sa sagot mo na ang tao hindi magsisinungaling kapag malapit na siyang mamatay.
What motivation would he have for lying? I mean, he's on his death bed. It doesn't make any sense. Anyway, what he said can't be construed as a "lie", perhaps an observation or an opinion. It can only be a lie if he doesn't really feel that way and he's just saying it to appeal to a group of people.
Quote
Ang pari ay tao na kumakatawan sa Diyos pero hindi sila Diyos. Dahil tao sila, nagkakamali sila.
Nakalimutan mo na ba ang mga salita mo na humans are flawed?
Oo nga. That's why I'm telling YOU that they are not above criticism. When it comes to your moral and spiritual life, you shouldn't let a priest dictate how you should live and how you should think. Ang problema sa ibang tao, wala na silang critical thinking skills. Sunod na lang sunod sa pari parang mga bobong tupa. It's fine to ask for their advice but try and read other lines of thinking, try and consult with other people even look at other religions and try and make up your own mind. Hindi palaging tama si Father.
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 30, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Yes you are right. You do not rely on one priest alone. This is the same as with Doctors. You get a second opinion from another Doctor or priest.
Not all people are created equal hence some people are likely to simply follow in verbatim. There is such a thing as common sense. If it does not make any sense then do not follow. If someone asks you to drink poison, will you?
However, some of your arguments are quite contradictory specially with regards to authority. The priests (even though they commit sin) have the moral obligation and authority to tell you what you need to heed with regards to morality. Surely a formal degree in religion just like a formal degree in engineering or medicine gives them authority on this matter.
The obvious question then becomes what authority regarding morality based on the bible can you argue to supersede the position of the Catholic Church? You need to logically justify your position based on the bible to ensure that your arguments are foolproof. Otherwise as I have stated earlier, you are bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 30, 2012 at 03:49 PM
There is such a thing as common sense. If it does not make any sense then do not follow. If someone asks you to drink poison, will you?
Absolutely. But my question to you is: Does this apply if the Catholic Church's teachings for you doesn't make any sense? Am I not allowed to disagree with the priests? Am I not allowed to criticize the Church for what I see is nonsense teachings? For me, it doesn't make ANY sense for the Church to forbid condoms and gay marriage, am I permitted to reject those teachings?
Quote
However, some of your arguments are quite contradictory specially with regards to authority. The priests (even though they commit sin) have the moral obligation and authority to tell you what you need to heed with regards to morality. Surely a formal degree in religion just like a formal degree in engineering or medicine gives them authority on this matter.
That's fine. But tell them to keep it within their church and the pulpit. Don't make their religious teachings into public policy. It's a violation of the separation of Church and State.
Quote
The obvious question then becomes what authority regarding morality based on the bible can you argue to supersede the position of the Catholic Church? You need to logically justify your position based on the bible to ensure that your arguments are foolproof. Otherwise as I have stated earlier, you are bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
Why should morality be only based on the Bible? Have you read the Bible? It's filled with a lot of rules and laws that we do not follow as a society. We do not yell "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!" to women who have their periods. We do not stone to death people who work in the Sabbath day. There are also lots of other religious books out there: The Koran, the teachings of Buddha, Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, etc. For me, they are pretty much all the same. For me, it is foolish and ridiculous to have to rely on one book to dictate your morality and even MORE foolish and MORE ridiculous to have to impose that morality onto other people who may or may not share your views.
I personally started having doubts about the Bible as the infallible word of God and of organized religion in general when I started actually reading the Bible because some of what they say does not make sense to me.
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 30, 2012 at 08:41 PM
If understanding the bible was so easy becoming a priest would end up just like a 5 day seminar. The fact that it takes several years of schooling means it is not as easy to interpret. Why do have to go the Church every Sunday to hear the word of God? Why do we need to interact with priests? Isn't it because we want to learn about the Bible and so that there is an answer to our questions. One simply cannot understand the Bible on his own. There are ways to learn more about the Bible and God eg retreats etc. You can participate in these.
You can disagree with priests the same way you can commit sin if you want to. This is the same as with children questioning or disagreeing with their parents. However, you will need to obey as you have no authority. You need to gain some authority for your superiors to listen to you eg good and logical argumentation skills.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 30, 2012 at 09:11 PM
An employee bows to his superiors. A member follows his leader. A child obeys his parents. Since you are a member of he Catholic Church you are compelled to obey.
If understanding the bible was so easy becoming a priest would end up just like a 5 day seminar. The fact that it takes several years of schooling means it is not as easy to interpret. Why do have to go the Church every Sunday to hear the word of God? Why do we need to interact with priests? Isn't it because we want to learn about the Bible and so that there is an answer to our questions. One simply cannot understand the Bible on his own. There are ways to learn more about the Bible and God eg retreats etc. You can participate in these.
You can disagree with priests the same way you can commit sin if you want to. This is the same as with children questioning or disagreeing with their parents. However, you will need to obey as you have no authority. You need to gain some authority for your superiors to listen to you eg good and logical argumentation skills.
1. However, some of your arguments are quite contradictory specially with regards to authority. The priests (even though they commit sin) have the moral obligation and authority to tell you what you need to heed with regards to morality. Surely a formal degree in religion just like a formal degree in engineering or medicine gives them authority on this matter.
2. The obvious question then becomes what authority regarding morality based on the bible can you argue to supersede the position of the Catholic Church? You need to logically justify your position based on the bible to ensure that your arguments are foolproof. Otherwise as I have stated earlier, you are bearing false witness against thy neighbor.
1. With regards to authority, sa church kasi namin, hindi masyadong implied ang authority over the other. Pero may moral obligation between each other as an accountability partner. Ultimate authority kasi comes from God and his Words are perfectly written in the Bible.
2. Marami din sir biblical verses that can supercede the position of the Catholic Church. ;)
Absolutely. But my question to you is: Does this apply if the Catholic Church's teachings for you doesn't make any sense? Am I not allowed to disagree with the priests? Am I not allowed to criticize the Church for what I see is nonsense teachings? For me, it doesn't make ANY sense for the Church to forbid condoms and gay marriage, am I permitted to reject those teachings?
It is your prerogative naman.
That's fine. But tell them to keep it within their church and the pulpit. Don't make their religious teachings into public policy. It's a violation of the separation of Church and State.
Why should morality be only based on the Bible? Have you read the Bible? It's filled with a lot of rules and laws that we do not follow as a society. We do not yell "UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!" to women who have their periods. We do not stone to death people who work in the Sabbath day. There are also lots of other religious books out there: The Koran, the teachings of Buddha, Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, etc. For me, they are pretty much all the same. For me, it is foolish and ridiculous to have to rely on one book to dictate your morality and even MORE foolish and MORE ridiculous to have to impose that morality onto other people who may or may not share your views.
You are correct. Pero sometimes, as part of evangelism, it is also correct to share the Word of God. pero never to convict that person of his wrongdoings.
I personally started having doubts about the Bible as the infallible word of God and of organized religion in general when I started actually reading the Bible because some of what they say does not make sense to me.
Then may i personally invite you the study the Bible with me, as i am also in the process of growing.
An employee bows to his superiors. A member follows his leader. A child obeys his parents. Since you are a member of he Catholic Church you are compelled to obey.
You can disagree with priests the same way you can commit sin if you want to. This is the same as with children questioning or disagreeing with their parents. However, you will need to obey as you have no authority. You need to gain some authority for your superiors to listen to you eg good and logical argumentation skills.
Obeying is good. Pero hindi masmaganda kung instead of being compelled to obey (as if napipilitan lang), you obey because of your love for God.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 31, 2012 at 01:20 AM
An employee bows to his superiors. A member follows his leader. A child obeys his parents. Since you are a member of he Catholic Church you are compelled to obey.
You can criticize your boss when he's wrong. It's also said that the best leader listens to his subordinates. I've heard all the priests' arguments against the things that I'm saying about contraception, abortion, gay marriage, etc. NONE OF THEM make a lick of sense to me.
As I said, it would be FINE if they remain that way as long as it remains in the church pulpit. They should NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY in government especially in a DEMOCRATIC, SECULAR government.
Quote
If understanding the bible was so easy becoming a priest would end up just like a 5 day seminar. The fact that it takes several years of schooling means it is not as easy to interpret. Why do have to go the Church every Sunday to hear the word of God? Why do we need to interact with priests? Isn't it because we want to learn about the Bible and so that there is an answer to our questions. One simply cannot understand the Bible on his own. There are ways to learn more about the Bible and God eg retreats etc. You can participate in these.
I grew up in Catholic school. I went to retreats and recollections. I still go to Mass every Sundays and holidays (mostly out of obligation). I took religious classes in college as well. I also read the Bible.
Quote
You can disagree with priests the same way you can commit sin if you want to. This is the same as with children questioning or disagreeing with their parents. However, you will need to obey as you have no authority. You need to gain some authority for your superiors to listen to you eg good and logical argumentation skills.
Sometimes parents can be wrong. Sometimes the boss can be wrong. Sometimes even the CHURCH can be wrong. Can you at least admit that sometimes priests can be wrong?
No offense but Bible study is my idea of torture. People who go to that types of things might as well be on a different planet than I am.
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 31, 2012 at 08:38 AM
You can criticize your boss when he's wrong. It's also said that the best leader listens to his subordinates. I've heard all the priests' arguments against the things that I'm saying about contraception, abortion, gay marriage, etc. NONE OF THEM make a lick of sense to me.
>> Do your own arguments make sense to you? Even in these thread your arguments are contradictory.
>> There is a position of the Catholic Church regarding Abortion. Outside of that it is Murder. Are you saying you are advocating beyond the position of the Catholic Church?
As I said, it would be FINE if they remain that way as long as it remains in the church pulpit. They should NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY in government especially in a DEMOCRATIC, SECULAR government.
>> Priests are citizens. As citizens they can participate in the government.
I grew up in Catholic school. I went to retreats and recollections. I still go to Mass every Sundays and holidays (mostly out of obligation). I took religious classes in college as well. I also read the Bible.
>> All these are good.
Sometimes parents can be wrong. Sometimes the boss can be wrong. Sometimes even the CHURCH can be wrong. Can you at least admit that sometimes priests can be wrong?
>> I have mentioned many times that people can be wrong. In that sense, priests can be wrong. Also in that sense, you can be wrong.
No offense but Bible study is my idea of torture. People who go to that types of things might as well be on a different planet than I am.
>> Patience is a virtue ... Whoever said studying is easy. Try studying Mandarin like the Chinese. They have to memorize so many characters (there are at least 39,000) and learn to write them properly. They have to memorize the 4 tones of pronunciation and have to memorize the different meanings of the same word pronounced identically! Even with these obstacles more people speak Mandarin compared to English. Why is that?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 31, 2012 at 08:44 AM
Try studying Mandarin like the Chinese. They have to memorize so many characters (there are at least 39,000) and learn to write them properly. They have to memorize the 4 tones of pronunciation and have to memorize the different meanings of the same word pronounced identically! Even with these obstacles more people speak Mandarin compared to English. Why is that?
Because nasa China ka sir...? ;D ;D
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 31, 2012 at 08:51 AM
Sumasakit na ang ulo ko sa pag-aaral. Araw araw na nga at mahigit isang taon pero hirap na hirap pa rin ako makipag-usap.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 31, 2012 at 07:36 PM
>> Do your own arguments make sense to you? Even in these thread your arguments are contradictory.
Could you point out which one of my arguments are contradictory? Maybe I could clarify them.
Quote
>> There is a position of the Catholic Church regarding Abortion. Outside of that it is Murder. Are you saying you are advocating beyond the position of the Catholic Church?
I actually DISAGREE with the Catholic Church with regards to abortion = murder. The whole concept of life beginning in conception kind of ridiculous since fertilized eggs are "aborted" all the time by women's bodies. So all sexually active women who have heavier-than-usual periods are potentially "aborting" their babies if the Catholic Church were to be followed.
If you disagree with me on this, fine. But why don't the Catholic Church support contraception? Wouldn't contraception lead to women not having to abort unwanted pregnancies? Because the Catholic Church is anti-sex and anti-woman. That's why they're opposed to contraception!
Quote
>> Priests are citizens. As citizens they can participate in the government.
They're free to vote and publicly express their opinions. But they cannot bully the government into bowing to their whims when it comes to public policy which is what the CBCP is doing. I'm happy the Filipino Freethinkers and Gabriela are fighting back, putting them on the defensive which is what we need because they've been special treatment by the government for way too long.
Quote
>> I have mentioned many times that people can be wrong. In that sense, priests can be wrong. Also in that sense, you can be wrong.
Yes, I could be wrong. But PERSONALLY, if I am wrong and the conservative Christians and Catholics are right then I do not want to worship or be with the God that they believe in because their God is a tyrannical, judgemental, misogynist, homophobic, anti-intellectual, narrow-minded, condescending, vain, egotistical, patronizing, corrupt, unjust, murderous, sociopathic God.
I personally would rather burn in Hell than worship their God (and apparently, your God too). So I *hope* that I'm right.
Quote
>> Patience is a virtue ... Whoever said studying is easy.
Studying is not easy but life's way too short to try and make sense of a 2,000 year old book that's been translated and interpreted by so many people throughout the centuries and put together arbitrarily by a group of old men. I've read it. I've learned about its history. And that's that.
The torture is not in the reading but it's in the people involved. I've come across these people, I know a few of them. They do not speak the same language as I do. LOL.
I do believe in a God and in a Creator. I believe in Jesus' teachings but I am NOT, I repeat, NOT religious. For me, organized religion, apart from cultural traditions, is really mostly irrelevant in my life right now. No, I do not feel empty or unhappy or misguided because of it.
Post by: rascal101 on Oct 31, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Could you point out which one of my arguments are contradictory? Maybe I could clarify them.
>> You said because priests sin they are bereft of moral authority ...
Hence as I have told you, since you also sin you are also bereft of authority. As such, you have no authority to claim or ask of anything from the Catholic Church. However, you make pleas for the Catholic Church to reverse its stand.
I actually DISAGREE with the Catholic Church with regards to abortion = murder. The whole concept of life beginning in conception kind of ridiculous since fertilized eggs are "aborted" all the time by women's bodies. So all sexually active women who have heavier-than-usual periods are potentially "aborting" their babies if the Catholic Church were to be followed.
>> Do you understand the word "intent"?
If you disagree with me on this, fine. But why don't the Catholic Church support contraception?
Wouldn't contraception lead to women not having to abort unwanted pregnancies? Because the Catholic Church is anti-sex and anti-woman. That's why they're opposed to contraception!
>> Anti-sex, anti-women ... I don't know why someone who studied in a Catholic school can say this?
Contraception ... say that again please with better arguments this time.
They're free to vote and publicly express their opinions. But they cannot bully the government into bowing to their whims when it comes to public policy which is what the CBCP is doing. I'm happy the Filipino Freethinkers and Gabriela are fighting back, putting them on the defensive which is what we need because they've been special treatment by the government for way too long.
>> When a 3 year old child tells you he can knock you down with one punch, is that threatening? When North Korea says it will bring down South Korea, is this threatening?
Yes, I could be wrong. But PERSONALLY, if I am wrong and the conservative Christians and Catholics are right then I do not want to worship or be with the God that they believe in because their God is a tyrannical, judgemental, misogynist, homophobic, anti-intellectual, narrow-minded, condescending, vain, egotistical, patronizing, corrupt, unjust, murderous, sociopathic God.
>> Now this is threatening ... anger/hatred with possibility of further action at those not in agreement with you? Now I question how you passed religion classes? Oh ... I forgot ... I did mention forgiveness is not part of your vocabulary ...
I personally would rather burn in Hell than worship their God (and apparently, your God too). So I *hope* that I'm right.
>> By this you already acknowledge you are not in the right.
Studying is not easy but life's way too short to try and make sense of a 2,000 year old book that's been translated and interpreted by so many people throughout the centuries and put together arbitrarily by a group of old men. I've read it. I've learned about its history. And that's that.
>> So I see. You read the Bible.
The torture is not in the reading but it's in the people involved. I've come across these people, I know a few of them. They do not speak the same language as I do. LOL.
>> Maybe you were speaking Chinese.
I do believe in a God and in a Creator. I believe in Jesus' teachings but I am NOT, I repeat, NOT religious. For me, organized religion, apart from cultural traditions, is really mostly irrelevant in my life right now. No, I do not feel empty or unhappy or misguided because of it.
>> To practice Humility is good.
Post by: A patch of blue on Oct 31, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Because I enrolled my sons in a Catholic institution, and because they are still in Grade 4, I am obligated to tutor them in Christian Living. Along the course of reviewing them, I came to realize something -- I may 'believe' that there is God, in Jesus, or in Jesus' teachings, but I have no faith. Faith is one of the 3 theological virtues of Christian moral living, the other 2 being hope and charity.
A child should follow his parents, even if it is against his perceived better judgement, because he believes that in the final analysis the parents know best. Believing against your perceived better judgement is faith. Faith is believing something you do not understand, or something that doesn't make sense. However, this may be very difficult for people like me who are, maybe, self-righteous and try to make sense of everything. Of course parents can be wrong, and priests and bishops can be wrong, because they are not perfect, no one is.
Post by: shrek7 on Oct 31, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Nov 01, 2012 at 04:18 AM
Quote
>> You said because priests sin they are bereft of moral authority ...
Hence as I have told you, since you also sin you are also bereft of authority. As such, you have no authority to claim or ask of anything from the Catholic Church. However, you make pleas for the Catholic Church to reverse its stand.
The Catholic Church has done far greater sins than simply giving out condoms to poor people who want it. Like the covering up of child molesters for one. The Catholic Church has yet to completely atone for it. They're still trying to sweep things under the rug and trying to minimize their responsibility towards these crimes. New scandals are being uncovered every year! I have sinned, sure. But none of my sins are nowhere near as bad as the Church's. Before they can tell us what to do with our bodies, they should rid and atone themselves of these wrong-doings. They have not!
Personally, I couldn't care less what the Catholic Church does. However, if they want to be relevant in the coming century and the centuries to come, they HAVE to change their stances eventually. That is a fact. Gay marriage is becoming more and more accept amongst young people. More and more Christian denominations are more accepting of gay rights. That's just one issue they HAVE to reverse their stand on. And they will eventually, perhaps within our lifetime.
Quote
>> Anti-sex, anti-women ... I don't know why someone who studied in a Catholic school can say this?
Simple. I read other things apart from the Bible and I have a critical mind and an open mind.
Quote
>> To practice Humility is good.
I agree. It's something that I could throw back to you, quite frankly. What is more humble? Acknowledging that you do not have all the answers, that you really don't know the meaning of it all or arrogantly knowing that if you do this and that and you believe this and that, that some omnipotent being will reward you with heavenly riches?
For me, I am HUMBLED by the fact that I do not have all the answers, that the universe is vast, infinite and we only know about a infinitesimally small portion of it. I do not claim to know God or to know what God wants of us. I acknowledge that you could be right. But Muslims could be right. Jews could also be right. Hindus could also be right. Protestants could also be right. I could be wrong. (My logic says otherwise but I see no hard evidence to contradict me). The only thing that I *do* know for a fact is that we're here, there are lots of wonderful things in this world. It may not be perfect. It may not always be fair. Life's too short to be narrow-minded and see sin everywhere. We need to make the world a better place for humanity. End of story.
Post by: bass_nut on Nov 01, 2012 at 07:48 AM
i am human.. a servant.. a sinner struggling to follow HIS WORDS and examples. hence, i will not and will NEVER believe to be better than HIM.
Post by: rascal101 on Nov 01, 2012 at 08:24 AM
But none of my sins are nowhere near as bad as the Church's. Before they can tell us what to do with our bodies, they should rid and atone themselves of these wrong-doings. They have not!
Simple. I read other things apart from the Bible and I have a critical mind and an open mind.
For me, I am HUMBLED by the fact that I do not have all the answers, that the universe is vast, infinite and we only know about a infinitesimally small portion of it. I do not claim to know God or to know what God wants of us. I acknowledge that you could be right. But Muslims could be right. Jews could also be right. Hindus could also be right. Protestants could also be right. I could be wrong. (My logic says otherwise but I see no hard evidence to contradict me). The only thing that I *do* know for a fact is that we're here, there are lots of wonderful things in this world. It may not be perfect. It may not always be fair. Life's too short to be narrow-minded and see sin everywhere. We need to make the world a better place for humanity. End of story.
>> I will repeat ... humility is good.
Post by: rascal101 on Nov 01, 2012 at 08:25 AM
my faith in GOD is NEVER lessened by any of these alleged wrong doings of some priests. actually, these negative allegations bring me closer to HIM.
i am human.. a servant.. a sinner struggling to follow HIS WORDS and examples. hence, i will not and will NEVER believe to be better than HIM.
+1M
Post by: rascal101 on Nov 01, 2012 at 09:44 AM
A child should follow his parents, even if it is against his perceived better judgement, because he believes that in the final analysis the parents know best. Believing against your perceived better judgement is faith. Faith is believing something you do not understand, or something that doesn't make sense. However, this may be very difficult for people like me who are, maybe, self-righteous and try to make sense of everything. Of course parents can be wrong, and priests and bishops can be wrong, because they are not perfect, no one is.
I like many struggle with faith everyday. However I sincerely believe he will help us overcome obstacles if we do our part.
Post by: A patch of blue on Nov 01, 2012 at 10:50 AM
God asking Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice to Him does not make sense (to Abraham), yet he obeyed because of faith.
You will never have faith if you are self-righteous. But nobody can judge you, even if you are.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Nov 01, 2012 at 11:32 AM
God asking Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a burnt sacrifice to Him does not make sense (to Abraham), yet he obeyed because of faith.
I'll let Louis C.K. explain this for me. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnd_JOp-eBE)
Post by: A patch of blue on Nov 01, 2012 at 11:59 AM
I'll let Louis C.K. explain this for me. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnd_JOp-eBE)
This, is what I meant. :)
At least he's got faith in Lucky Louie, hehe
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM
1. Paano nagiging saint sa RC?
2. bakit sila Moses and yun mga nasa OT hindi naging saint?
Post by: Quitacet on Nov 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Question:
1. Paano nagiging saint sa RC?
2. bakit sila Moses and yun mga nasa OT hindi naging saint?
At bakit may mga saint na nadedemote? Paano yung mga nanalangin sa kanila for intercession to God?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM
At bakit may mga saint na nadedemote? Paano yung mga nanalangin sa kanila for intercession to God?
Meron ba? Paano nademote?
Post by: Quitacet on Nov 21, 2012 at 01:23 PM
Meron ba? Paano nademote?
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=36
Maybe my term demotion is not accurate but it's the same banana
Post by: barrister on Nov 25, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Meron ba? Paano nademote?
Meron. Ang dami nga e, more than forty.
Paano na-demote? By removal from the liturgical calendar due to doubt as to whether they really existed or were mere legends.
http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/upi/ (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/upi/)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 26, 2012 at 12:42 AM
Meron. Ang dami nga e, more than forty.
Paano na-demote? By removal from the liturgical calendar due to doubt as to whether they really existed or were mere legends.
http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/upi/ (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/pages/upi/)
Bakit ang ma old testament characters hindi naging saint? Like Moss, David, Elijah etc...?
What makes a saint different from Mose etc?
And, paano ba magind saint?
Post by: dpogs on Nov 26, 2012 at 01:27 PM
Bakit ang ma old testament characters hindi naging saint? Like Moss, David, Elijah etc...?
What makes a saint different from Mose etc?
And, paano ba magind saint?
Sa RC, kailangan may malaki kang nagawa para sa catholic, and performed a miracle (while alive or kahit patay na)...
but for me... a true Christian is a saint.
Post by: devlin_waugh on Nov 26, 2012 at 01:32 PM
http://sowhatsnews.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/jealous-of-the-ph-milf-deal-cbcp-proposes-separate-state-for-catholics/
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 26, 2012 at 02:04 PM
Jealous of the PH-MILF Deal, CBCP Proposes Separate State for Catholics
http://sowhatsnews.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/jealous-of-the-ph-milf-deal-cbcp-proposes-separate-state-for-catholics/
Below is the proposed Framework Agreement for the Autonomous Region in Catholic Cebu (ARCC):
A. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HOLYLAND
The Parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and that the Autonomous Region in Catholic Cebu (ARCC) shall be established to replace the the entire Cebu province. The ARCC or the Holyland is the new autonomous political entity (NPE) upon the implementation of this agreement.
The government of the ARCC shall have a Theocratic Monarchy form.
The relationship of the Central Government with the ARCC shall be asymmetric but the Pinoy Pope (see Section C-2) shall have a final say on any matters pertaining to the ARCC.
Spouses and their descendants are classified as Catholics. The freedom of choice of other Indigenous peoples shall be semi-respected or not at all.
The existing Lapu-Lapu shrine shall be demolished on the day of ARCC’s foundation.
B. BASIC LAW
The Holyland shall be governed by a Basic Law: The Law of the Priests Bible.
The Basic Law shall reflect the Holyland system of life and meet internationally accepted standards of governance except that of the United Nations.
It shall be formulated by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, which is hereby renamed Catholic Bastion for Centralize Peace.
C. POWERS
The Central Government will have no powers, the ARCC Government shall have its exclusive powers, and there will be concurrent powers shared by the Central Government and the ARCC Government. Very minimal concurrent powers.
The ARCC shall appoint via a papal conclave, their leader who shall be called the Pinoy Pope or the PPope.
The PPope shall have the powers of excommunication that could be sentenced to anyone who the CBCP deems as “satan”.
The PPope shall be the leader of the ARCC until the day he dies.
D. BASIC RIGHTS
In addition to basic rights already enjoyed, the following rights of all citizens residing in the Holyland bind the legislature, executive and judiciary as directly enforceable law and are guaranteed:
Right to life and procreation.
Right to freedom and expression of religion and the words of the Lord.
Right to privacy of a priest and altar boys.
Right of women to meaningful political participation, and protection from all forms of violence. Except for maternal health.
Right to freedom from religious, ethnic and sectarian harassment; just as long as you choose Catholism; and
Right to redress of grievances and due process of law, as long as Father’s said so.
Right to smuggle ivory to be made into idols.
Right to object or contradict Catholic teachings are allowed but extradition to the “Unholyland” (rest of the Philippines) shall follow.
Other provisions are said to be added at a later date.
The CBCP has released a press statement concerning their stand on the proposed agreement:
“With a an autonomous region all to ourselves, we are half way there. We shall show the world a state without the much ballyhooed responsible parenthood. A state without abortifacient condoms (sic). A state where a father’s needs are more important than a mother’s welfare. A state where our members are free to worship idols made from elephant tusks without the fear of judgement from the public. A state where our health-expert-priests are free to check our altar boy’s genitals for any form of rashes, without being called a child molester. A state where Catholics can live in the Middles Ages. A state where they can enjoy life to the fullest.”
“Take my hand and we’ll make it – I swear, cause in ARCC, we shall be living on a prayer.”
Post by: barrister on Nov 26, 2012 at 09:50 PM
And, paano ba magind saint?
Under Catholic doctrine, that's called canonization.
The procedure involves 5 steps. The "Devil's Advocate" was removed from the procedure in 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization#Roman_Catholic_procedure_since_1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization#Roman_Catholic_procedure_since_1983)
Bakit ang ma old testament characters hindi naging saint? Like Moss, David, Elijah etc...?
What makes a saint different from Mose etc?
Saints din yung nasa Old Testament. Para masabi mong hindi sila saints under Catholic teaching, kailangan mong magpakita ng Catholic doctrine na direktang sinasabi na hindi sila santo, pero wala kang maipapakitang ganong dokumento.
Ganito kasi yon:
Even prior to the establishment of the procedure for Catholic canonization was instituted, the Old Testament patriarchs were already acknowledged by Catholics as saints. So by the time the procedure for canonization was formalized, those patriarchs did not have to go through the process, because that would have been unnecessary.
Post by: rusty on Nov 26, 2012 at 10:56 PM
VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI has told his six new cardinals to resist the allure of power and instead be like Jesus and focus their work on spreading the Christian faith.
Benedict celebrated a Mass on Sunday in St. Peter's Basilica with the cardinals he formally elevated a day earlier. The six hail from Colombia, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, the Philippines and the U.S. — a broad geographic mix that helps even out the Europe-heavy College of Cardinals who will elect 85-year-old Benedict's successor.
In his homily, Benedict told his new collaborators that Jesus had no political ambitions. He said: "To be like Jesus, then, means not letting ourselves be allured by the worldly logic of power, but bringing into the world the light of truth and God's love."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pope-tells-new-cardinals-not-be-lured-power
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jan 30, 2013 at 05:43 AM
Quote
Saints din yung nasa Old Testament. Para masabi mong hindi sila saints under Catholic teaching, kailangan mong magpakita ng Catholic doctrine na direktang sinasabi na hindi sila santo, pero wala kang maipapakitang ganong dokumento.
This doesn't make sense.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 30, 2013 at 10:42 AM
This doesn't make sense.
I think sir Barrister is referring to saints by Roman Catholics, which is different from other sects.
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Post by: barrister on Jan 30, 2013 at 12:17 PM
I understand that. Pero what he's saying is the opposite of the norm. Saints ang mga nasa Old Testament unless proven otherwise.
You're not saying anything different.
Let's divide it into 2 parts.
=======================================
Part I:
(a) I said:
Saints din yung nasa Old Testament.
(b) You said:
Saints ang mga nasa Old Testament...
Part II:
(a) I said:
Para masabi mong hindi sila saints under Catholic teaching, kailangan mong magpakita ng Catholic doctrine na direktang sinasabi na hindi sila santo
(b)You said:
... unless proven otherwise.
I don't see how that can be any clearer.
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jan 30, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Am I making sense? In general, we have to prove that someone is a saint. But for the Old Testament people, you're saying that the rule is the opposite. Why is that?
Post by: barrister on Jan 30, 2013 at 12:29 PM
I'll try to make sense of what I'm driving at. In general, a person is not a saint... unless shown otherwise.
Yes, that is correct, but only as a general rule.
Under Catholic doctrine, the Catholic Church does not create saints; rather, it merely recognizes a person as a saint. Generally, a "Saint" is a person officially recognized as such by the Catholic Church by the process of canonization. Therefore, no canonization, no saint.
Why then is St. Joseph (foster father of Jesus) considered a saint by Catholics when he was never canonized by the Catholic Church? Because the requirement of canonization is a general rule that admits of exceptions.
St. Joseph was already widely recognized as a saint centuries before the process of canonization was instituted. Therefore, because of his status, he is officially a saint without need for formal recognition via canonization.
Concerning the Old Testament saints, a professor of liturgy explains:
Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: Why is it that we never invoke or ask intercession of any of the "holy ones" from the Old Testament in the prayers of the Mass, nor do we have feast days to honor them? I am thinking of those such as Elijah, Hannah, Samuel, Ruth, King David, or Isaiah, to name a few. Though we may refer to them, no feast day appears on the Roman calendar, nor any mention when praying in the Eucharistic prayers to be united with the saints in heaven. — J.K., Portland, Oregon
A: The reason that there are no feast days to Old Testament saints in the Church's universal calendar is probably due to the historical process in which the calendar was formed. At first, only martyrs for Christ were remembered on their anniversaries, and shortly afterward the Blessed Virgin was also honored with feast days.
St. Martin of Tours (died 397) was probably the first non-martyr remembered with a feast. But the tradition has generally been that the saints in the calendar have been heroic examples of the life in Christ.
This does not mean that Old Testament saints were not recognized or that their intercession could not be sought.
The Roman Martyrology, a liturgical book first published in the 1600, collects all of the saints and blessed officially recognized by the Church and organized according to their feast day. Those classified as saints in this book may be celebrated on their feast days, provided that the day is free of any other obligatory celebration.
Most of these saints, who far outnumber those of the general calendar, have no specific Mass formulas. Whenever they are celebrated, the most appropriate formulas are chosen from the common of saints.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur194.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur194.htm)
But what you're saying is... a person from the Old Testament is a saint... unless it is shown that he is not.
It goes without saying that only the leading personalities of the Old Testament are considered saints. It does not mean that all persons in the Old Testament without exception are saints.
For example, Abraham, a primary figure in the Old Testament, was never canonized by the Catholic Church. Yet he is recognized by the Catholics as a saint, whose feast day is celebrated on the 9th of October:
http://www.catholic.co.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=503%3Afeast-of-saint-abraham-october-9&catid=32%3Afeasts&Itemid=44&lang=en (http://www.catholic.co.il/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=503%3Afeast-of-saint-abraham-october-9&catid=32%3Afeasts&Itemid=44&lang=en)
Am I making sense? In general, we have to prove that someone is a saint. But for the Old Testament people, you're saying that the rule is the opposite. Why is that?
Not all of the "Old Testament people," but only the leading personalities of the Old Testament.
Following your view, Moses of the Old Testmant should not be considered a saint, because he was never proved to be a saint, since he was never formally canonized as a saint. And since no Old Testament personality has ever been canonized, then not a single personality from the Old Testament can be validy considered a saint by the Catholics.
But Catholics recognize Moses as a saint. He is included in the Roman Martyrology, and therefore included in the list of saints, even if he was never canonized.
Why is he considered a saint even without canonization?
Very simple. He was considered a saint long before the process of canonization was instituted centuries later. Therefore, if he's already recognized as a saint, then canonization would not be necessary.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 31, 2013 at 02:53 AM
Post by: rusty on Feb 11, 2013 at 09:54 PM
FRONTRUNNERS FOR NOW
While there are no official candidates, here are "papabili" (potential popes) the most frequently mentioned recently. The list is in alphabetical, not in order of their chances, and will probably change between now and when the conclave is held, most likely in March.
- Joao Braz de Aviz (Brazil, 65) brought fresh air to the Vatican department for religious congregations when he took over in 2011. He supports the preference for the poor in Latin America's liberation theology, but not the excesses of its advocates. Possible drawbacks include his low profile.
- Timothy Dolan, (USA, 62) became the voice of U.S. Catholicism after being named archbishop of New York in 2009. His humour and dynamism have impressed the Vatican, where both are often missing. But cardinals are wary of a "superpower pope" and his back-slapping style may be too American for some.
- Marc Ouellet (Canada, 68) is effectively the Vatican's top staff director as head of the Congregation for Bishops. He once said becoming pope "would be a nightmare." Though well connected within the Curia, the widespread secularism of his native Quebec could work against him.
- Gianfranco Ravasi (Italy, 70) has been Vatican culture minister since 2007 and represents the Church to the worlds of art, science, culture and even to atheists. This profile could hurt him if cardinals decide they need an experienced pastor rather than another professor as pope.
- Leonardo Sandri (Argentina, 69) is a "transatlantic" figure born in Buenos Aires to Italian parents. He held the third-highest Vatican post as its chief of staff in 2000-2007. But he has no pastoral experience and his job overseeing eastern churches is not a power position in Rome.
- Odilo Pedro Scherer (Brazilia, 63) ranks as Latin America's strongest candidate. Archbishop of Sao Paolo, largest diocese in the largest Catholic country, he is conservative in his country but would rank as a moderate elsewhere. The rapid growth of Protestant churches in Brazil could count against him.
- Christoph Schoenborn (Austria, 67) is a former student of Pope Benedict with a pastoral touch the pontiff lacks. The Vienna archbishop has ranked as papal material since editing the Church catechism in the 1990s. But some cautious reform stands and strong dissent by some Austrian priests could hurt him.
- Angelo Scola (Italy, 71) is archbishop of Milan, a springboard to the papacy, and is many Italians' bet to win. An expert on bioethics, he also knows Islam as head of a foundation to promote Muslim-Christian understanding. His dense oratory could put off cardinals seeking a charismatic communicator.
- Luis Tagle (Philippines, 55) has a charisma often compared to that of the late Pope John Paul. He is also close to Pope Benedict after working with him at the International Theological Commission. While he has many fans, he only became a cardinal in 2012 and conclaves are wary of young candidates.
- Peter Turkson (Ghana, 64) is the top African candidate. Head of the Vatican justice and peace bureau, he is spokesman for the Church's social conscience and backs world financial reform. He showed a video criticising Muslims at a recent Vatican synod, raising doubts about how he sees Islam. (Additional reporting by Philip Pullella; Editing by Giles Elgood)
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/11/13/cardinal-tagle-reuters-list-potential-popes
Post by: oweidah on Mar 10, 2013 at 08:29 AM
Then assassinated or suddenlt die inside the vatican?
Post by: JT on Mar 10, 2013 at 08:59 AM
what if tagle becomes pope?
He wont. He doesnt have a strong influence in Europe. His name is there simply to stir up the Filipinos because more and more pinoy are departing from this religion.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 12, 2013 at 09:16 PM
i have this gut feel that Cardinal Tagle will end up being named the next Pope......
I predicted a Pinoy presidency in 2010, a CJ Coroa ouster in 2012...hmmm.....a few hours or a day from now we will all know...
Magpapa-pansit ka kapag hindi naging Pope si Cardinal Tagle? ;)
Post by: bumblebee on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Post by: barrister on Mar 13, 2013 at 01:16 PM
The only requirement to be a pope is that you are a baptized male. Pano kung me asawa na yung napili?
OK lang. Hindi naman bawal yon.
If he is not a priest, he takes a vow of chastity, is ordained as a priest, is consecrated as a bishop, then gets elected as pope.
Meron naman talagang Catholic priest na may asawa:
A Cohort of Married Roman Catholic Priests, and More Are on the Way
By MARK OPPENHEIMER
Published: January 6, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/married-roman-catholic-priests-are-testing-a-tradition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
Post by: luis on Mar 13, 2013 at 04:21 PM
ang sagot ng Christian Living teacher "pwede pero maraming conditiones, halimbawa kailangan kayang buhayin ni misis yung pamilya"... mahaba yung compliance checklist...
just sharing.
Post by: JT on Mar 13, 2013 at 07:00 PM
My guess is that the next pope is an Italian and this profile fits:
- Angelo Scola (Italy, 71) is archbishop of Milan, a springboard to the papacy, and is many Italians' bet to win. An expert on bioethics, he also knows Islam as head of a foundation to promote Muslim-Christian understanding. His dense oratory could put off cardinals seeking a charismatic communicator.
Italian to revive the roman empire, will unite Europe as well as all religion into Ecumenism.
Post by: rusty on Mar 14, 2013 at 03:21 AM
http://www.rappler.com/world/new-pope/23754-argentina-s-bergoglio-is-the-new-pope
Post by: ABCmotorparts on Mar 14, 2013 at 03:26 AM
We have a new pope,..! ^-^
Post by: Verbl Kint on Mar 14, 2013 at 04:50 AM
Pope Francis,....
We have a new pope,..! ^-^
Nothing speaks more about reform in the Catholic Church than electing a Jesuit as pope. :)
Post by: Verbl Kint on Mar 14, 2013 at 06:35 AM
liberation theology?
Not really. Bishop Bergoglio was supposedly against it but he is definitely pro-poor. Choosing the iconic name of Francis speaks volumes about his sincere belief in austerity.
Post by: Philjonc on Mar 14, 2013 at 09:43 AM
i have this gut feel that Cardinal Tagle will end up being named the next Pope......
I predicted a Pinoy presidency in 2010, a CJ Coroa ouster in 2012...hmmm.....a few hours or a day from now we will all know...
pano kung katulad nyan hindi Pinoy ang nakuhang bagong Pope anong ibig sabihin?
Post by: JT on Mar 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Pope Francis,....
We have a new pope,..! ^-^
Oh I was wrong then. Its an Argentinian Pope.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Mar 14, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Nothing speaks more about reform in the Catholic Church than electing a Jesuit as pope. :)
He's not one of THOSE types of Jesuits though.
Post by: oweidah on Mar 14, 2013 at 02:01 PM
liberation theology?
Wawawee ! christianizdd marxism? Burn francis burn hehe
Post by: oweidah on Mar 14, 2013 at 02:20 PM
Post by: oweidah on Mar 18, 2013 at 01:16 PM
sell, divest, give donate the church's riches
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/pope-says-wants-poor-church-church-poor-104432278.html
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 01, 2013 at 02:01 PM
(http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/QA/face-of-jesus-01-0312-mdn.jpg)
Post by: thebat on Apr 24, 2013 at 04:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysBJ5G4m67s
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 24, 2013 at 09:23 PM
Do you guys really think that being religious automatically means you're a good person with morals and family values?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 24, 2013 at 09:52 PM
This article about a political candidate actually got me thinking. (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/04/23/13/dont-separate-church-and-state-senate-bet-says) A lot of Pinoys especially those who are lower-middle-class to poor, seem to believe that being religious goes hand in hand with being a person of good moral character and a responsible leader. A notion which I disagree with. One only has to look at the picture of Erap going to Mass to know this.
Do you guys really think that being religious automatically means you're a good person with morals and family values?
Depends on how you define religious...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
Definition of RELIGIOUS
1
: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2
: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
If this is your definition of religious, depende sa doctrine ng religion. If the religion teaches/supports this:
with being a person of good moral character and a responsible leader.
with morals and family values?
Then the person is religious.
Am i making sense... ;D A lot of people define being religious na palaging nagsisimba.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 24, 2013 at 09:57 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 24, 2013 at 10:04 PM
So you think an atheist or agnostic or someone who does not go to church or follow any particular religion CANNOT have moral values?
Nope. He can have moral values. Fishy question. ;) It's his moral values naman. Not mine. :) Di ba, morality is subjective?
Post by: barrister on Apr 25, 2013 at 09:41 AM
Do you guys really think that being religious automatically means you're a good person with morals and family values?
No. In my experience, being religious or not has nothing to do with it.
May religious na mabuti, may religious na walanghiya rin naman. May non-religious na mabuti, may non-religious na masama.
The religious types are the ones who catch us off guard because we have a natural tendency to assume that the religious are good people.
In my case, I'm more cautious when dealing with the religious types. Marami na akong nakitang estafador na banal na aso na, santong kabayo pa ... :P
Post by: rexFi on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:34 AM
BUT here's a thread (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,176476.0.html) that I hoped show that Morals are not all subjective. E.g. see law of non-contradiction.
I firmly believe Evangelical Christianity IS where Morality is defined the Best. Though even the "subjective" things are defined or left for us to decide. (see Romans 14).
So you think an atheist or agnostic or someone who does not go to church or follow any particular religion CANNOT have moral values?
The question for me is "Where did it come from?"
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
Post by: RU9 on May 23, 2013 at 10:03 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
Post by: leomarley on May 23, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
and how did he know this? assuming that there is a god?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 23, 2013 at 10:41 PM
People always do the contrary to what they say/or believe all the time (just like me, I think I already said I won't post here anymore ;D)
BUT here's a thread (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,176476.0.html) that I hoped show that Morals are not all subjective. E.g. see law of non-contradiction.
I firmly believe Evangelical Christianity IS where Morality is defined the Best. Though even the "subjective" things are defined or left for us to decide. (see Romans 14).
The question for me is "Where did it come from?"
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
Nice read and insights. Thank you so much.
Post by: rexFi on May 24, 2013 at 09:49 AM
and how did he know this? assuming that there is a god?
Based on the (misinterpretation?) of the Historical Death of Jesus of Nazareth in relation to the Historical Atonement Sacrifices of the old Jewish people I guess sir.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 24, 2013 at 09:43 PM
^ Lets thank CS Lewis. :)
Based on the (misinterpretation?) of the Historical Death of Jesus of Nazareth in relation to the Historical Atonement Sacrifices of the old Jewish people I guess sir.
Yun ba yun sacrifice ng best crop and livestock?
Post by: tagilid on May 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM
Post by: ninjababez® on May 25, 2013 at 06:18 AM
sir tanong lang is there such thing as kaluluwa or soul? meron n b nagpatunay n may kaluluwa ang bawat tao?yes, if you believe in god :)
Post by: tagilid on May 25, 2013 at 08:32 AM
yes, if you believe in god :)
sir youve got pm..
Post by: rexFi on May 25, 2013 at 08:38 AM
sir tanong lang is there such thing as kaluluwa or soul? meron n b nagpatunay n may kaluluwa ang bawat tao?
Historical lang kasi, since Jesus is real then it follows for example. If kung sa "scientific method" then syempre impossible for now. Di nman lahat ng Truth mkukuha ng Science.
For me lang , Logic ang first then History then Science. Then we get the logical conclusion.
Yun ba yun sacrifice ng best crop and livestock?
Madami sir eh, e.g. John 3:16 in relation sa Leviticus and Hebrews chapter.
*hirap magtype sa mini tablet :/
Post by: leomarley on May 25, 2013 at 12:20 PM
Historical lang kasi, since Jesus is real then it follows for example. If kung sa "scientific method" then syempre impossible for now. Di nman lahat ng Truth mkukuha ng Science.
For me lang , Logic ang first then History then Science. Then we get the logical conclusion.
huh? medyo magulo ata yung sinabi mo sir. Science is based on logic so that is a null argument. regarding Jesus, majority of scholars belive he existed but the same scholars question or have little agreement on his divinity. so just because Jesus existed doesn't mean necessarily mean that there is a soul.
Post by: CMac on May 25, 2013 at 02:19 PM
Some of the atheists I know have gone through personal tragedies. A common picture for a believer to convert. I totally understand their predicament. But for others who have made the transition just because who knows why, keep it to yourself. Di ba? Alam mo na pala yung sagot sa buhay eh. Let others discover what you've discovered on their own. You guys are way ahead of us in terms on enlightenment. Good for you, but most of us don't care. ;)
Post by: leomarley on May 25, 2013 at 02:42 PM
But for others who have made the transition just because who knows why, keep it to yourself. Di ba? Alam mo na pala yung sagot sa buhay eh. Let others discover what you've discovered on their own. You guys are way ahead of us in terms on enlightenment. Good for you, but most of us don't care. ;)
so basically what you're saying is for those atheists who didn't have the same enlightenment doesn't have the right to talk about what they believe or don't believe? edi sabihin mo rin yan dun sa mga pari na wag sila mangaral sa homily at bahala na lang mga tao maka-discover ng sariling enlightenment. sabihin mo na din dun sa mga Missionaries in Africa or wherever na do not spread the word of the lord.
Post by: rexFi on May 25, 2013 at 11:42 PM
huh? medyo magulo ata yung sinabi mo sir. Science is based on logic so that is a null argument. regarding Jesus, majority of scholars belive he existed but the same scholars question or have little agreement on his divinity. so just because Jesus existed doesn't mean necessarily mean that there is a soul.
What I basically said was Science should be under Logic. Its not above it. Its methods should be logically sound in proving/or disproving things. One should be "testing the tests".
So far we cannot "test" the nature of the soul therefor its not the Tool to find out if it exists or not. We can therefore use Historical data and interpret it. Then have the only logical conclusion.
regarding Jesus, majority of scholars belive he existed but the same scholars question or have little agreement on his divinity. so just because Jesus existed doesn't mean necessarily mean that there is a soul.
Jesus' divinity is also questioned in every religion (e.g. INC he's just a man but should be worshiped).
I also didn't get you here, Is your conclusion a soul do not exist because there are discussions/disagreements about Jesus divinity?
Anyway Jesus existing is just one example, there is also about God existing due to a number of "proofs" e.g. The Creation, (i.e can something come out from absolutely nothing?) The Moral Arguments (we discussed some of this in the Emphaty thread) etc.
Maraming ididiscuss about that na I have no time unfortunately. ;D
Basically its God exists therefore the Soul exists. (then loop sa taas, about testing its/the soul's) existence via Science.)
And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in :-X
- Jesus in Matthew 10:28
biglang nanakot eh noh? ;D
Fear can sometimes be the determinant of good action. Who/What do atheists fear? Are we saying that they are innately doing good out of habit or are simply guided by the knowledge they've obtained from grade school textbooks on morals and values? I see religion as a discipline much like how the law is implemented in a state. Without fear of consequence, what then drives an atheists to do more good than bad?
Fear of consequences can be put out in the equation naman, Morality is also founded in Logic or logically sound, which is mostly I believe there is "Someone" who put things into place so doing good works makes sense, and the answer to "What is good?" also makes sense. :)
Some of the atheists I know have gone through personal tragedies. A common picture for a believer to convert. I totally understand their predicament. But for others who have made the transition just because who knows why, keep it to yourself. Di ba? Alam mo na pala yung sagot sa buhay eh. Let others discover what you've discovered on their own. You guys are way ahead of us in terms on enlightenment. Good for you, but most of us don't care. ;)
I basically agree with leomarley on this one. Dapat pwede lahat siguro hehe.
Post by: CMac on May 26, 2013 at 01:32 AM
Post by: leomarley on May 26, 2013 at 03:04 AM
There are those that believe and others who attack that belief. I'm referring to the latter who have nothing to lose in a religious argument.
that's what atheists do. that's what they preach. of course they will preach that there is no god because that's what they believe in or don't believe. also a correction, they do not attack. they're merely trying to open up people's minds.
Post by: rexFi on May 26, 2013 at 07:50 AM
that's what atheists do. that's what they preach. of course they will preach that there is no god because that's what they believe in or don't believe. also a correction, they do not attack. they're merely trying to open up people's minds.
Same with us. Pagnagdedebate, di kagad "attack" yon or shoving the belief to others troats(sp? :))
There are those that believe and others who attack that belief. I'm referring to the latter who have nothing to lose in a religious argument.
We also do not have something to lose, its the other who has something to gain. :)
Happy Sunday. :)
Post by: leomarley on May 26, 2013 at 09:32 AM
Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html?utm_hp_ref=religion
LOLOLOL sila mismo di magkasundo ;D
Quote
Vatican corrects Pope: Atheists are still going to hell
After Pope Francis told the world even atheists can go to heaven, the Vatican issued a correction: Atheists are still going to hell.
The Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning of “salvation,” on Thursday, May 23, after media reports circulated indicating that Pope Francis” promised heaven for everyone engaged in good works, including atheists.
In response to the media attention, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”
(Translation: Atheists are going to Hell if they don’t accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.)
Rosica also said that Francis had “no intention of provoking a theological debate on the nature of salvation,” during his homily on Wednesday.
The current theological confusion began after the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics made comments during the homily of his morning Mass on Wednesday, May 22, indicating that atheists would enjoy the fruits of eternal salvation if they were good people. Francis said:
The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!
We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.
http://www.examiner.com/article/vatican-corrects-pope-atheists-are-still-going-to-hell
Post by: ninjababez® on May 26, 2013 at 04:07 PM
ewan ko kung natanong na dito ito, bakit natalo sa election si Bro. Eddie Villanueva?wala pa yata mang tony. binoto ko sya, medyo gusto ko kasi makasubok ng bago eh. maski nung tumakbo sya dati binoto ko rin sya.
Post by: rusty on Jun 12, 2013 at 01:14 PM
In a surprising move, Christian conservative and Republican leader Mike Huckabee is encouraging churches to give up their tax exempt status. Huckabee issued the following call for churches to unilaterally give up their tax-exempt status via Twitter on June 11:
It's time for churches to reject tax exempt status completely; freedom is more important than government financial favors.
Huckabee first suggested that Christians “give up tax-exempt status and tax deductions for charitable contributions” on June 10, while speaking at the pastors’ conference prior to the annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Houston. There Huckabee said:
I think we need to recognize that it may be time to quit worrying so much about the tax code and start thinking more about the truth of the living God, and if it means that we give up tax-exempt status and tax deductions for charitable contributions, I choose freedom more than I choose a deduction that the government gives me permission to say what God wants me to say.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-huckabee-says-churches-should-give-up-tax-exempt-status
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 12, 2013 at 09:32 PM
Post by: RU9 on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:23 PM
By: Agence France-Presse
September 11, 2013 10:07 PM
Share This
ROME -- Pope Francis on Wednesday said atheists could take moral decisions just like religious people, in an unprecedented letter to a leftwing Italian daily -- his latest attempt to reach out to nonbelievers.
"God's mercy has no limits if we turn to him with a sincere and contrite heart," the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics said in a missive published in La Repubblica by its founder Eugenio Scalfari.
"The question for people who do not believe in God is to listen to their consciences. Also for those without faith, sin is going against your conscience," he said.
"Listening to it and obeying it means making up one's mind about what is good and evil," he added.
The letter was the 76-year-old pope's reply to questions posed in the newspaper in July and August by Scalfari, who had admitted to not believing in God.
Since being elected in March, the Argentine pope has repeatedly said he wants his words to be heard by faithful from other religions and non-believers.
During a blessing in St. Peter's Square in May, Francis said nonbelievers could be redeemed just like Catholics -- an unusual message that was quickly denied by a Vatican spokesman who said that anyone who refuses the Catholic Church "cannot be saved."
"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ. All of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!" the pope said in his address in May.
"We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there," he said.
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/70536/atheists-can-be-moral---pope-francis
Post by: leomarley on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 11, 2013 at 11:37 PM
"We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there," he said.
Eto hindi ko gets. No offense meant, pero kapag tinawag ng atheist na father si God, that means di na siya atheist and believer na tama?
Post by: RU9 on Sep 12, 2013 at 12:21 AM
Eto hindi ko gets. No offense meant, pero kapag tinawag ng atheist na father si God, that means di na siya atheist and believer na tama?
Father refers to a priest.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 12, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Father refers to a priest.
Thanks for clarification. I nearly forgot about that.
Post by: pao9307 on Sep 18, 2013 at 01:34 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 19, 2013 at 07:57 PM
Been meaning to ask this: any Muslim members here in Pdvd?
Ako din i wanna know. Kc they also worship the God of Abraham sa pagkaka-alam ko.
Post by: Daiguru on Sep 23, 2013 at 01:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwF2ldNpbQ
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 23, 2013 at 08:13 PM
i am a catholic.... pero sa panahon ngayon at nagyayari sa paligid, napakarami na ng mga lumalabas na religion... bawat isa nagsasabi na sila ang totoo at sa tunay na diyos.. pero sino nga ba talagang totoo?? :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwF2ldNpbQ
Bible.
Post by: leomarley on Sep 23, 2013 at 09:21 PM
Bible.
Muslims will then tell you the Koran.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 23, 2013 at 10:05 PM
Muslims will then tell you the Koran.
Agree!
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 24, 2013 at 08:12 AM
Post by: Daiguru on Sep 24, 2013 at 03:43 PM
Bible.yes BIBLE... pero napakarami ng mga mangangaral na nangangaral na iba-iba ang paliwanag sa bawat verse ng bible..i am a catholic pero madalas ako manuod ng INC, Ely Soriano, JIL, at iba pa mga religious show sa tv, pero isa lang sa kanila ang bible ang laging batayan sa pagsagot sa tanong ng mga nagsusuri... Kapag religion talaga ang pinag-uusapan ng kahit sino man ay walang katapusan ang paliwanagan... may kanya-kanya talagang paniwala ang bawat isa. ayaw ko mag iba or lumipat ng religion. Anu man ang religion na samahan ko alam ko na di nya ako kayang iligtas kung puro mali din ang gagawin ko sa kapwa ko. kung anu ang nakagisnan ko duon na lang ako. iiwasan at hindi ko na lang gagawin ang maling turo ng religion ko na sa pagkakaalam at nalaman ko na mali. For me the most important thing is "kung ayaw mo gawin sayo huwag mong gawin sa kapwa mo".
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 24, 2013 at 05:02 PM
Post by: sirhc on Oct 02, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Agence France-Presse
7:29 am | Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/499113/anti-muslim-riots-rock-western-myanmar#ixzz2gWdZYFzA
first incident I know where Muslims were the one oppressed, and the followers of Buddha, whose supposed to be gentle, austere, benevolent, and gives utmost important to life in general played the role of oppressors.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 13, 2013 at 09:15 PM
Post by: Quitacet on Oct 14, 2013 at 07:14 AM
CMIIW, according to the bible, it was Isaac who was supposed sacrifice by Abraham. Pero sa Feast of Sacrifice by our Muslim brothers, si Ishmael naman ang supposedly sacrifice?
Yes. Ishmael is considered by Muslims as the forefather of Arabs.
C. But the Bible mentions that Isaac was to be sacrificed.
M. The Islamic version states that the covenant between God, Abraham, and his only son Ishmael was made and sealed when Ishmael was supposed to be sacrificed. On the very same day, Abraham, Ishmael, and all the men of Abraham's household were circumcised. At that time, Isaac had not even born: Genesis 17:24-27: "And Abraham was ninety years old and nine when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."
A year later, Isaac was born and circumcised when he was eight days old: Genesis 21:4-5: "And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him." So when the covenant was made and sealed (circumcision and sacrifice) Abraham was ninety-nine and Ishmael was thirteen. Isaac was born a year later, when Abraham was one hundred years old.
As you know, Kedar is a descendent of Ishmael (Genesis 25:13), and Ishmael is the the base for the Family Tree of Prophet Muhammad through Kedar. The followers of Ishmael, Prophet Muhammad and all Muslims, remain faithful until today to this covenant of circumcision. In their five daily prayers, Muslims include the praise of Abraham and his followers with the praise of Muhammad and his followers.
C. But in Genesis 22 it is mentioned that Isaac was to be sacrificed.
M. I know, but you will see the contradiction there. It is mentioned "shine only son Isaac." Shouldn't it be "shine only son Ishmael," when Ishmael was thirteen years old and Isaac had not even been born? When Isaac was born, Abraham had two sons. Because of chauvinism, the name of Ishmael was changed to Isaac in all of Genesis 22. But God has preserved the word "only" to show us what it should have been.
The words "I will multiply thy seed" in Genesis 22:17 was applied earlier to Ishmael in Genesis 16:10. Was not the whole of Genesis 22 applicable to Ishmael then? "I will make him a great nation" has been repeated twice for Ishmael in Genesis 17:20 and Genesis 16:10: "And the angel of the Lord said unto her [Hager]: 'I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude."'
Genesis 17:20: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. Twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation."
Genesis 21:13: "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed."
Genesis 21:18: "Arise, lift up the lad [Ishmael], and hold him in shine hand, for I will make him a great nation."
Deuteronomy 21:15-17: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hash, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hash: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Islam does not deny God's blessings on Isaac and his descendants, but the son of promise is Ishmael, from whom arose Muhammad as the seal of the prophets.
source: http://www.islam101.com/religions/christianity/sacrifice.htm
Post by: RU9 on Nov 19, 2013 at 12:08 AM
Pope Francis's life is in danger from 'ndrangheta, Italy's most feared crime group, a leading anti-mafia judge has claimed.
Nicola Gratteri, a magistrate in the southern city of Reggio Calabria, near 'ndrangheta's heartland, has said the Pontiff's crackdown on financial corruption in the Vatican, has angered bosses in the brutal crime syndicate, which is thought to rule Europe's cocaine trade.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-his-life-is-in-danger-from-ndrangheta-warns-antimafia-judge-8937661.html
Post by: Oldboyracer on Nov 21, 2013 at 08:05 PM
I have spent all afternoon browsing this thread & it has reminded me why I never discuss religion or politics. I am impressed with your knowledge of the bible & religion in general. I find it an excellent debate & gives lots of food for thought. I have definitely learned much.
Post by: rusty on Nov 22, 2013 at 04:48 AM
Post by: Oldboyracer on Nov 22, 2013 at 08:30 AM
90 Second Animated History of Religion (http://www.businessinsider.com/90-second-animated-history-of-religion-2013-11)
Interesting
Post by: RU9 on Nov 26, 2013 at 11:47 PM
http://rt.com/news/pope-francis-capitalism-tyranny-324/
Post by: barrister on Nov 27, 2013 at 02:58 PM
If he practiced what he preached, his religion would no longer be the richest in the world.
http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/the-10-richest-religions-in-the-world/ (http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/the-10-richest-religions-in-the-world/)
Post by: barrister on Nov 27, 2013 at 03:35 PM
Researchers spark controversy by claiming
her care of the sick was 'dubious' and
handling of cash 'suspicious'
By Daily Mail Reporter
PUBLISHED:17:33 GMT, 3 March 2013| UPDATED:10:36 GMT, 4 March 2013
... At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries.
But these missions have been described as 'homes for the dying' by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta.
Doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers.
But the authors say the problem is not a lack of money, as the foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundred of millions of pounds.
Sisters of the Missions of Charity attend the state funeral for Mother Teresa in Calcutta but critics have sparked controversy claiming her care of the sick was 'dubious.'
They also say that following numerous natural disasters in India she offered prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid.
But she accepted the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti, said prof Larivee, and although millions of dollars were transferred to the various bank accounts, most of the accounts were kept secret.
Dr Larivie says: 'Given the parsimonious management of Mother Teresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287427/Was-Mother-Teresa-saintly-Researchers-spark-controversy-claiming-care-sick-dubious-handling-cash-suspicious.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287427/Was-Mother-Teresa-saintly-Researchers-spark-controversy-claiming-care-sick-dubious-handling-cash-suspicious.html)
Mother Teresa: Sadistic religious fanatic
guilty of medical malpractice
March 6, 2013
... Researchers report Mother Teresa saw beauty in suffering, and was far more willing to pray for those in her care rather than provide practical medical treatment. In addition to her medical malpractice and her perverse and sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of others, the study also raises questions about Teresa’s financial mismanagement of large sums of money, and her friendship with unsavory and immoral world leaders.
... Famed author and journalist Christopher Hitchens is cited in the new study. Hitchens was one of the first to raise questions about the authenticity of claims made by the Roman Catholic Church promoting Mother Teresa. The following is an excerpt from Hitchens’ 2003 critique:
“Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.
“And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go?
“Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of Mother Teresa: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mother-teresa-sadistic-religious-fanatic-guilty-of-medical-malpractice (http://www.examiner.com/article/mother-teresa-sadistic-religious-fanatic-guilty-of-medical-malpractice)
Missionaries of Inhumanity
Warning: Due to the distressing nature of the images, I’ve posted all of them at the very end of this post. May not be suitable to be viewed at work. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hemley Gonzalez, currently back in India, has found another volunteer for the Missionaries of Charity who is now, after 13 years of working for Mother Teresa’s famous organisation, willing to speak up about the countless cases of abuse, medical negligence, and financial fraud she witnessed. And she has many stories to tell. Here is the full-length interview, courtesy of Hemley Gonzalez.
http://humanizzm.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/missionaries-of-inhumanity/ (http://humanizzm.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/missionaries-of-inhumanity/)
Post by: rexFi on Dec 28, 2013 at 03:25 PM
Exodus (2014) : do modern and intelligent people really... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528100/board/thread/221852800?p=1)
:)
Vanity of Vanities :D
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Dec 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Any thoughts on this?
Post by: barrister on Dec 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM
It's just a restatement of an old idea.
All we need is to keep church and state separate.
Post by: JT on Dec 30, 2013 at 10:51 PM
For human rights to flourish, religious rights must come second. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/human-rights-religious-rights-come-second)
Any thoughts on this?
You mean, for human rights to flourish religious rights must not be abolished.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Dec 31, 2013 at 12:00 AM
You mean, for human rights to flourish religious rights must not be abolished.
If your definition of religious expression means subjugating women or discriminating against LGBT's, then your rights come in second.
Post by: JT on Dec 31, 2013 at 06:03 AM
If your definition of religious expression means subjugating women or discriminating against LGBT's, then your rights come in second.
I got typo error. I mean this: "For human rights to flourish, Religious rights must be abolished completely."
Although we have free will, not all that we think or do will be good for us because we have tendency towards iniquities. We don't teach our children to do bad things, they come out naturally that's why we teach them to do what is right.
Need to have a moral compass above man's standard. I firmly believe the bible is God's standard.
Post by: dpogs on Dec 31, 2013 at 08:59 AM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Dec 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM
i firmly believe that when human law is put first before or above God's law... this world is going nowhere... that is what happening today...
Whose God's law?
Post by: dpogs on Dec 31, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Whose God's law?
hmmm let s see... im very sure...
...the One that keeps on knocking on your door... :)
Post by: leomarley on Dec 31, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Whose God's law?
good argument. of the thousands of gods out there, which god and god's law should we follow?
Post by: neilc on Dec 31, 2013 at 01:09 PM
i firmly believe that when human law is put first before or above God's law... this world is going nowhere... that is what happening today...
God's Law? How sure are you that those laws you're referring to are made by God. And who's God?
Post by: barrister on Dec 31, 2013 at 01:30 PM
i firmly believe that when human law is put first before or above God's law... this world is going nowhere... that is what happening today...
The world already tried putting God's law first, and this is what happened:
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/inquisition-wheel.jpg)
Today, some groups still insist on putting God's law first. This is what they got:
(http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/taliban_execute.jpg)
Post by: dpogs on Dec 31, 2013 at 01:39 PM
The world already tried putting God's law first, and this is what happened:I firmly believe... they are not putting God's law on the first place... they are putting laws that they think are beneficial on their religion/sect...
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/inquisition-wheel.jpg)
Today, some groups still insist on putting God's law first. This is what they got:
(http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/taliban_execute.jpg)
and i believe... i am referring to the God of that man being tortured... i am referring to the God of those believers hunted, tortured and killed both by roman catholics and protestants...
I am referring to the God of those people that believe on the separation of church and state...
I am referring to the God of these people that value life more than self satisfaction...
Post by: leomarley on Jan 01, 2014 at 02:19 AM
I am referring to the God of those people that believe on the separation of church and state...
I am referring to the God of these people that value life more than self satisfaction...
Medyo contradicting ata yung gusto mo na sundin ang law of god sa statement mo na 'to.
Post by: greatauror28 on Jan 01, 2014 at 02:30 AM
Another thread about people who loves to justify that there's no God and that human laws must come first, support LGTB righrts, etcetera, etcetera.
Jeez people, its already 2014. Respect each and everyone's opinion.
Doesn't matter really what you believe in, as long as you don't step on others.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 01, 2014 at 04:40 AM
Medyo contradicting ata yung gusto mo na sundin ang law of god sa statement mo na 'to.
hmmm... to be honest i am not referring to the law of god... i am referring to the law of God...
i believe on the separation of church and state in terms of freedom of religion...
1. a government must not force its citizen to join any particular religion/sect or to enforce a certain belief from particular group.. the government must never use its force or interfere on any practices, heirarchy or doctrine of the church...
2. a church must not use the government for its personal gain... nor seek power or money to meet their ends...
kaya nga hindi ako bilib sa mga pari o pastor na naghahangad ng puwesto sa gobyerno... mahirap ang mamangka sa dalawang ilog... mahirap maglingkod sa dalawang master... kailangan isa lang....
tsaka dont bring your religion to work or to school... kapag oras ng trabaho dapat trabaho lang... oras ng pag-aaral dapat aral lang... though we cant bring religion to work or school or in office... we can always bring God anywhere...
if we look closer the function of church and state are beneficial to each other...
God's law value life and despises the selfish... despises those who seek for their own satisfaction only...
1. God's law considered life as sacred and is precious... that is why it is a crime to kill innocent lives...
2. God's law states that the capital punishment for those guilty of murder (or any crime resulted to death of innocent lives) is death...
3. God's law states that death must be given to those who found guilty of murder...
4. God's law states that a fair trial regardless of class or status must be observed and requires proof of guilt before administering any punishment...
5. God's law states that all person are equal, innocent or guilty, are created before the image of God thus must be treated with dignity... murderer or not... criminals or not... both deserve to be treated with dignity... kumbaga walang bastusan... we are all human...
kaya nga i strongly disagree to legalize abortion since it kills innocents life... and agree for death penalty as capital punishment for heinous crimes espcially for those guilty of murder..
hindi ko nga maintindihan itong mga pro abortionist na ito and at the same time ayaw ng death penalty... they are willing na patayin ang inosente at hayaang mabuhay ang isang mamamatay tao...guilty of murder/heinous crimes...
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jan 01, 2014 at 11:08 AM
hmmm let s see... im very sure...
...the One that keeps on knocking on your door... :)
So I should worship the Electrolux man? :-P
Post by: leomarley on Jan 01, 2014 at 12:13 PM
Just what I expected.
Another thread about people who loves to justify that there's no God and that human laws must come first, support LGTB righrts, etcetera, etcetera.
Jeez people, its already 2014. Respect each and everyone's opinion.
Doesn't matter really what you believe in, as long as you don't step on others.
i'm not against people who have religious beliefs as it is their right to praise whoever they want. But i have issues with those who hinder human progress, specially in the sciences, because of their beliefs.
It's like having a penis. it's nice to have one but don't go around wagging it in front of everybody. just keep it to yourself.
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson sums it up easily:
"I don't have an issue with what you do in the church, but I'm going to be up in your face if you're going to knock on my science classroom and tell me they've got to teach what you're teaching in your Sunday school. Because that's when we're going to fight."
Have a happy New Year!
Post by: barrister on Jan 01, 2014 at 02:08 PM
i'm not against people who have religious beliefs as it is their right to praise whoever they want. But i have issues with those who hinder human progress, specially in the sciences, because of their beliefs.
I agree.
Worship whomever you want. But when religious belief is imposed on others, that's when it becomes a problem.
And that's the dilemma when someone proposes to follow God's laws. First, somebody has to choose which God. Then the religious beliefs of the group are imposed on all others.
Paano kung Satanista ako. Si Satanas ang Diyos ko. Let's follow God's laws! :D Who decides which God is the correct God? Palakasan ng palakpak? ???
As history has shown, separation of church and state is the solution.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 01, 2014 at 02:45 PM
So I should worship the Electrolux man? :-P
well go ahead... we have freedom of religion/beliefs naman... you can worship him if that is the One who keeps on knocking on your door...
hmmm... i am just wondering... why is that electrolux man keeps on knocking at your door... nagtataka tuloy ako... parang ayaw ko na tuloy bumili ng products ng electrolux... mukhang hindi matitibay at kailangang lagi silang kumatok sa aking pintuan....
Post by: dpogs on Jan 01, 2014 at 03:09 PM
I agree.
Worship whomever you want. But when religious belief is imposed on others, that's when it becomes a problem.
that is why we need separation of church and state... state must not be involved on any affairs of the church unless if it will disrupt peace and order... church must not seek power or gain financial support to any group or government to fulfill their mission... we need total freedom of religion...
And that's the dilemma when someone proposes to follow God's laws. First, somebody has to choose which God. Then the religious beliefs of the group are imposed on all others.
There is no dilemma when somebody has to choose which 'god' he/she wants to follow and share it to others... the dilemma is when somebody has to imposed his/her belief to others that will result or will contradict or will deprived other freewill or freedom of speech/religioin
Paano kung Satanista ako. Si Satanas ang Diyos ko. Let's follow God's laws! :D Who decides which God is the correct God? Palakasan ng palakpak? ???
As history has shown, separation of church and state is the solution.
as history has shown also, (all) most laws formulated by (any) majority of government are just an amplified version of the ten commandment...
for us to prosper as a nation... huwag na dapat makialam ang roman catholic, iglesia ni kristo, protestants etc at kung ano mang grupo consider na natin mga scientology... na makialam sa anumang affair ng government/state o magseek ng favor, power or money to carry out their spiritual agenda... huwag na rin dapat magpakita ng pabor ang government sa iilang piling religious sect lamang...
in the Philippines, we dont have a real and complete separation of church and state...
Post by: barrister on Jan 01, 2014 at 03:52 PM
that is why we need separation of church and state... state must not be involved on any affairs of the church unless if it will disrupt peace and order... church must not seek power or gain financial support to any group or government to fulfill their mission... we need total freedom of religion...
There is no dilemma when somebody has to choose which 'god' he/she wants to follow and share it to others... the dilemma is when somebody has to imposed his/her belief to others that will result or will contradict or will deprived other freewill or freedom of speech/religioin
Hindi naman pala tayo magkakontra sir. Pero iba yung sabi mo previous posts mo.
as history has shown also, all the laws formulated by any government are just an amplified version of the ten commandment...
No, that's not true.
You said ALL laws of ANY government.
In Saudi, blasphemy against Allah is punishable by beheading. Wala namang ganon sa ten commandments.
In the Philippines, bawal ang walang seatbelt. Saan sa ten commandments ang ganon?
Post by: dpogs on Jan 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM
Hindi naman pala tayo magkakontra sir. Pero iba yung sabi mo previous posts mo.
No, that's not true.
You said ALL laws of ANY government.
In Saudi, blasphemy against Allah is punishable by beheading. Wala namang ganon sa ten commandments.
In the Philippines, bawal ang walang seatbelt. Saan sa ten commandments ang ganon?
Hmmm... you have a point there... edit ko post ko....
Post by: barrister on Jan 19, 2014 at 05:21 PM
to baby and names him after Pope Francis
Saturday 18th January 2014
... The nun, who is from El Salvador, had kept her pregnancy a secret and even as she was being taken to hospital in an ambulance denied that she could be pregnant.
“It's not possible, I'm a nun,” she told doctors, according to the Italian press.
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/nun-gives-birth-to-baby-and-names-him-after-pope (http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/nun-gives-birth-to-baby-and-names-him-after-pope)
Post by: krets pulpol on Jan 19, 2014 at 10:42 PM
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/shocked-italian-nun-gives-birth-baby-boy-095247545.html
I mean WTF is this?! She think she's the new Mary?
The results of a study on reproductive health, published in the British Medical Journal, revealed that one in 200 US women claim to have given birth without ever having had sexual intercourse.
Post by: barrister on Jan 19, 2014 at 11:33 PM
I mean WTF is this?! She think she's the new Mary?
I guess so.
The first time I encountered the idea of a nun claiming to have had a virgin birth was in the 1985 movie "Agnes of God" ---
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/23/Agnes_moviep.jpg/220px-Agnes_moviep.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_God_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_of_God_(film)))
The first time I heard about something like it real life is in this news item.
Post by: starfighter on Jan 20, 2014 at 12:05 AM
Nun who didn't know she was pregnant gives birth
to baby and names him after Pope Francis
Saturday 18th January 2014
... The nun, who is from El Salvador, had kept her pregnancy a secret and even as she was being taken to hospital in an ambulance denied that she could be pregnant.
“It's not possible, I'm a nun,” she told doctors, according to the Italian press.
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/nun-gives-birth-to-baby-and-names-him-after-pope (http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/nun-gives-birth-to-baby-and-names-him-after-pope)
the "immaculate" conception
Post by: Verbl Kint on Jan 20, 2014 at 06:44 AM
Nun who didn't know she was pregnant gives birth
to baby and names him after Pope Francis
Saturday 18th January 2014
... The nun, who is from El Salvador, had kept her pregnancy a secret and even as she was being taken to hospital in an ambulance denied that she could be pregnant.
“It's not possible, I'm a nun,” she told doctors, according to the Italian press.
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/nun-gives-birth-to-baby-and-names-him-after-pope (http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/nun-gives-birth-to-baby-and-names-him-after-pope)
(http://s24.postimg.org/wr0rsubv9/exasperated_pope.jpg)
Post by: sirhc on Jan 20, 2014 at 09:06 AM
the "immaculate" conception
We already have the technology to confirm this though right? I say imbestigahan muna medically before we jump into conclusions.
Here's an example, although technically, the girl got pregnant through a sexual act, it still happened without sexual intercourse, just with the right incredible conditions.. :)
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/08/the-bizarre-story-of-the-girl-with-no-vagina-who-was-stabbed-and-had-a-baby/
Post by: dpogs on Jan 20, 2014 at 06:07 PM
Post by: barrister on Mar 17, 2014 at 10:51 AM
By Dr. Philip S. Chua
10:00 am | Monday, March 10th, 2014
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AYGADCtGBTk/T50TXaUvY4I/AAAAAAAACnE/iZFC5t3mzZw/s1600/Fr.+Fernando+Suarez.jpg)
San Miguel Corp (SMC) has responsibly scuttled the 33-hectare-land-donation to self-proclaimed healing priest Fr. Fernando Suarez’s ambitious plan “to construct a P1 billion ‘mega shrine’ to Mother Mary in Alfonso, Cavite, because of serious concerns about the management and financial issues.”
SMC has discovered the “healing priest”, has reneged on his vows of poverty and has “been living the lifestyle of the rich and famous, wearing expensive clothes and watches, billeting himself at 5-star hotels when he attended matches like the Wimbledon.” The investigation also revealed that his expenses and business transactions were not properly documented.
... Fr. Fernando Suarez is a 47-year-old priest who flies all over the world where Filipinos are, literally claiming to have the power of healing, and without finesse or subtlety, asking for monetary contribution for his project, which he said would be taller than the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro.
http://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/2014/03/10/the-healing-priest-controversy/ (http://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/2014/03/10/the-healing-priest-controversy/)
Post by: nbc on Mar 17, 2014 at 02:09 PM
nbc
Post by: barrister on Mar 17, 2014 at 03:26 PM
By Ramon Tulfo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
2:08 am | Thursday, March 6th, 2014
... Many rich people healed by Father Suarez have given him hundreds of thousands and even millions of pesos out of gratitude.
But when asked why his foundation was short on finances, the priest was reportedly heard saying: “Sa akin binigay ang pera. Bakit ko ibibigay sa aking foundation (The money was given to me. Why should I give it to my foundation)?”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582650/the-healing-priests-rich-lifestyle (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582650/the-healing-priests-rich-lifestyle)
Post by: barrister on Mar 17, 2014 at 03:39 PM
‘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 (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/582645/there-was-money-why-was-shrine-not-built)
Post by: Verbl Kint on Mar 19, 2014 at 01:48 AM
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.
Post by: barrister on Mar 19, 2014 at 12:37 PM
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 (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20080130-115675/No-Lazarus-Man-who-came-back-to-life-dies)
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Mar 19, 2014 at 06:05 PM
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.
Post by: barrister on Mar 19, 2014 at 09:31 PM
Yung mga devotees na wala namang sakit, ewan ko lang. Yung "healer," makapal na talaga mukha niyan.
Post by: sirhc on Mar 20, 2014 at 08:31 AM
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 (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/09/shocking-someone-flat-line-wont-help/) to start pumping back again through a defibrillator, pwede pa siguro CPR.
Seems PDI is really out on a campaign to destroy father suarez.. ;D
Post by: RU9 on Mar 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM
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/
Post by: leomarley on Oct 08, 2014 at 05:29 PM
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/
Post by: docelmo on Oct 17, 2014 at 09:29 PM
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
Post by: leomarley on Oct 17, 2014 at 11:12 PM
from the title of that CNN article:
Quote
Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?
Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN
and from the disclaimer:
Quote
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:
Quote
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
Post by: barrister on Oct 18, 2014 at 12:37 AM
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?
Post by: leomarley on Oct 18, 2014 at 07:42 AM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 18, 2014 at 10:02 AM
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...
Post by: leomarley on Oct 18, 2014 at 11:05 AM
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.
Post by: docelmo on Oct 18, 2014 at 02:57 PM
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.
Post by: leomarley on Oct 18, 2014 at 05:05 PM
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.
Post by: barrister on Oct 20, 2014 at 02:19 PM
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 (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.
Post by: docelmo on Oct 20, 2014 at 03:13 PM
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!
Post by: tony on Oct 20, 2014 at 03:23 PM
Quote
opinions are not truths. they are simply just that, opinions.
+10000000000......
Post by: leomarley on Oct 20, 2014 at 03:59 PM
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).
Post by: leomarley on Oct 20, 2014 at 04:12 PM
Quote
... 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.
Post by: barrister on Oct 20, 2014 at 05:41 PM
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.)
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 20, 2014 at 06:03 PM
There's also mutation. Cross breeding can be considered as well.
Post by: barrister on Oct 20, 2014 at 09:20 PM
^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.
Post by: exaltedgamer on Oct 20, 2014 at 09:46 PM
Post by: RU9 on Oct 20, 2014 at 10:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 21, 2014 at 09:58 AM
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.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 21, 2014 at 02:41 PM
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.
Post by: barrister on Oct 21, 2014 at 03:28 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10614162_1011522682197179_6794581268434933767_n.png?oh=8549cde09e230ee324b0b69880acb2b0&oe=54E654AD&__gda__=1425539354_1af3c6d718bfe419f83b6295ca6accf0)
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... :D
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... :D
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 21, 2014 at 06:56 PM
(https://scontent-a-hkg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10514705_529972107039263_6005836439841733729_n.jpg?oh=011d6c344df61918b4ae0e6c391a682e&oe=54B91E0C)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 21, 2014 at 08:52 PM
Which holy book is the most moral?
(https://scontent-a-hkg.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10514705_529972107039263_6005836439841733729_n.jpg?oh=011d6c344df61918b4ae0e6c391a682e&oe=54B91E0C)
The Holy Bible says that a woman can be sold to her rapist after he violates her.
Try lang natin sagutin ha:
Quote
Question: "Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?"
Answer: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible attackers as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the Word of God. At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Is that the correct interpretation of the text, and if so, how is that not horribly unfair to the woman? This issue is actually addressed in two passages, both of which are below:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."
Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."
Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!).
Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" – this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality (the word "uncleanness" refers to this and was translated as such in the LXX). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.
But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.
The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says.
Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.
Also note that the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html#ixzz3GmdTrvtL
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 21, 2014 at 10:34 PM
Post by: RU9 on Oct 21, 2014 at 11:20 PM
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.
Here's an excerpt from a 2010 article that implies her involvement in money matters:
It is good news about some of the changes. Unfortunately, we are still in the dark when it comes to their financial records,” says Gonzalez. The donation issue first came up in the early 1990s when it was revealed that Charles Keating, an American banker known for the infamous “saving and loan scandal,” had donated up to $1.25 million to Missionaries of Charity. Amidst calls to return the money, Mother Teresa controversially chose to remain silent, an incident that is still sited by her critics who demand transparency.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 21, 2014 at 11:49 PM
^What you said wasn't that much better though. It still does not refute the fact that women are second-class citizens and pretty much property to be exchanged by men. So if you have a daughter, you are the guardian of her vagina until a suitable-enough man comes along in which you pass on the control of your daughter's vagina onto him so as to give him sons. Do you agree?
Sir, actually I do have a daughter. And I am not a guardian of her vagina. She is 23 years old and under the Philippines law, she is free to choose whosoever she wants to marry. I can only give advice.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 22, 2014 at 12:14 AM
really... guardian of vagina?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 22, 2014 at 12:25 AM
talagang vagina pa ang kailangang protektahan:) truly a sign of no experience having a daughter... we as father are responsible for our daughter wellfafe and safety until she come to right age and capable of deciding by herself...
really... guardian of vagina?
Baka sir yun ang pagkaka-intindi niya sa sagot ko or dun sa verse. Or may follow up question siya after ko sagutin. Pero medjo hindi ko ma-connect re topic about rape. Or baka the virginity is in question kaya vagina ang issue.
here is some explation as to how christians consider virginity:
Quote
Question: "Why is virginity so important in the Bible?"
Answer: When the Bible uses the word virgin, it refers to an unmarried person who has not had sexual relations (see Esther 2:2 and Revelation 14:4). In today’s culture, many people use the word virginity to express sexual purity; however, many others use a technical definition to find loopholes in moral standards, limiting the word to mean only “the condition of never having gone all the way”—thus, a couple can do anything and everything short of sexual intercourse and still technically call themselves “virgins.” This is an unprofitable word game. Chastity should affect the heart, mind, and soul, not just certain body parts.
The Bible’s emphasis is not so much on a technical or medical definition of virginity as it is on the condition of a person’s heart. The morality we espouse and the actions we choose give evidence of our heart’s condition. The Bible’s standard is clear: celibacy before marriage and monogamy after marriage.
There are three serious reasons to save sex for marriage. First, as believers, we are to obey what God tells us to do. First Corinthians 6:18–20 states, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.” If we are in Christ, He has purchased us with the sacrifice of His life. He calls the shots, and we are to honor Him.
The second reason is that we are to fight our spiritual battles wearing the breastplate of righteousness (Ephesians 6:14). We are in a contest between our new nature in Christ and our fleshly desires. First Thessalonians 4:3–7 says, “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.” Allowing your body (rather than the Spirit) to control your actions is an act of defiance against God. Godly, loving sex between a husband and wife is giving and unselfish. Using someone to fulfill a desire of the flesh is self-centered and abusive. Even if the partner is willing, you are still helping him or her to sin and negatively altering that person’s relationship with God and others.
The final reason involves the “mystery” of marriage (Ephesians 5:31). When God spoke of two people being joined as one, He was referring to something we’re only beginning to understand in a real, physiological way. When two people are intimate, the hypothalamus in the brain releases chemicals that induce feelings of attachment and trust. Having sex outside of marriage results in a person forming an attachment and trusting someone with whom he or she does not have a committed relationship. The definition of trust in the mind deteriorates. To have that kind of link with someone without the security of working together toward God is dangerous. Two individuals who are—even mildly—physiologically obsessed with each other but not committed to growing in God as a couple can be torn from God and His plans for them.
Conversely, if two people make a conscious, deliberate choice to commit to each other in marriage, and then allow the intimacy that releases these chemicals, the body can reaffirm the connection the mind has made. The physiological feelings of trust and attachment are reinforced by the reality of the relationship. In this way, two people become one physically, and that reflects what God has done spiritually.
Marriage is to model the relationship between the church and Christ. A married couple is to serve God in a strong, unified partnership. Sex, along with procreation, was designed by God to strengthen that partnership. Sex outside of marriage creates bonds that tear apart people’s hearts instead of joining them together.
Finally, we need to remember a few things about virginity, and the lack thereof, given God’s grace. Those who come to Christ after engaging in premarital sexual relationships are not virgins; however, they are fully cleansed by Christ at the moment they are saved. God can redeem anyone, and He can heal those who have indulged their fleshly lusts. And, in the horrible case of a woman victimized by sexual abuse or rape, who may feel that she, through no fault of her own, no longer measures up to the ideal standard of “virginity,” Christ is able to restore her spirit, heal her brokenness, and grant her wholeness.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-virginity.html#ixzz3GnUqw9Cd
Post by: dodie on Oct 22, 2014 at 12:32 AM
and also their line of reasoning tends to be a little bit personal and disrespectful in nature if they are engage in a conversation that contradicts their own personal beliefs as if they have the monopoly of righteousness. as what docelmo mentioned in the other thread.......not just a hint but truly a condescension.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 22, 2014 at 12:36 AM
Baka sir yun ang pagkaka-intindi niya sa sagot ko or dun sa verse. Or may follow up question siya after ko sagutin. Pero medjo hindi ko ma-connect re topic about rape. Or baka the virginity is in question kaya vagina ang issue.
from selling a rape victim to become wife instead... then it become to treating women as second class citizen...
basta ako kapag may masamang mangyari sa daughter ang isisigaw ko ay "PAGBABAYARAN nila ang ginawa nila sa anak kooooo...!!! They will pay for what they have done to my daughter...!!!"
siguro kung sa panahon ni Deutrnmy... malamang lamang... mukha ngang naibenta ko anak ko after niya marape :)
Post by: leomarley on Oct 22, 2014 at 05:40 AM
mahirap talagang paliwanagan ang mga taong hindi naniniwala sa dyos. kaylanman ang kanilang argumento ay hindi sasailalim sa paliwanag ng kahit sino mang experto sa relihiyon o taong may paniniwala sa dyos.
and also their line of reasoning tends to be a little bit personal and disrespectful in nature if they are engage in a conversation that contradicts their own personal beliefs as if they have the monopoly of righteousness. as what docelmo mentioned in the other thread.......not just a hint but truly a condescension.
please stay on topic. The topic here is religion not the persons making the arguments. No need to get personal here.
Post by: DVD_Freak on Oct 22, 2014 at 07:56 AM
please stay on topic. The topic here is religion not the persons making the arguments. No need to get personal here.
I think that is inevitable. For those who believe in God, of course it's personal when you call him a tyrant. That alone borders on disrespectful.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM
Quote
In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive.
Where is the equality in this?
Post by: Quitacet on Oct 22, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM
Where is the equality in this?
Quote
Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.
Also note that the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
I'm sorry pero hindi ma-gets ang question ninyo. If you mean equality re woman without a husband having a difficult time to provide for herself so they sell themselves to slavery or prostitution, di ba sir it still happens sa present day? May mga ganyan cases pa din ang DSWD and government agencies protecting women though wala na atang slavery ngayon.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 22, 2014 at 11:37 AM
I'm sorry pero hindi ma-gets ang question ninyo. If you mean equality re woman without a husband having a difficult time to provide for herself so they sell themselves to slavery or prostitution, di ba sir it still happens sa present day? May mga ganyan cases pa din ang DSWD and government agencies protecting women though wala na atang slavery ngayon.
It doesn't really need an answer. Just pointing out that in the olden times, and as you said, even now, women are valued differently from men.
Post by: barrister on Oct 22, 2014 at 03:27 PM
Sir, actually I do have a daughter. And I am not a guardian of her vagina. She is 23 years old and under the Philippines law, she is free to choose whosoever she wants to marry. I can only give advice.
You don't seem to be on the same page.
Ang punto ni sir Klaus, kung ganon ang regulations according to the bible, then you have the obligation to abide by those regulations. Otherwise, you are violating those regulations.
What you failed to see is sir Klaus' misapplication of the Old Testament regulations.
The Old Testament regulations apply to ancient Israelites, not Christians. What applies to Christians is the New Testament.
Bakit puro Old Testament ang sinisita niya? ;)
...we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:6)
23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. (Galatians 3: 23-25)
Post by: dodie on Oct 22, 2014 at 06:56 PM
please stay on topic. The topic here is religion not the persons making the arguments. No need to get personal here.
im i out of topic sir? the problem with the religion thread is that the people making arguments about certain religions doesnt have a religion at all! what is this? dito may monopoly of bashing the catholic religion or the christian faithfulls. bkt hindi nyo kaya subukang i shift yung energy of trying to find faults and wrong teachings or even corruption sa muslim religion at sa iglesia ni kristo?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 22, 2014 at 07:07 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 22, 2014 at 09:24 PM
I can cite many other barbaric Old Testament laws.
For example, what is the penalty for a rebellious son? Death. :D
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. (Deut. 21:18-21 )
9 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. (Lev. 20:9)
Death penalty for both parties to a homosexual act.
13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Lev. 20:13)
Necromancy
27 A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads. (Lev. 20:27)
Blasphemy
16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death.The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death. (Lev. 24:16)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 22, 2014 at 10:15 PM
Don't get wrong. I believe in God. But I believe in a benevolent, non-interfering God. Not a tyrannical, insecure God who needs to be worshiped constantly, who loves us by threatening to send us all in hellish torment if we don't obey His rules and who apparently, despite the fact that He's omnipotent and created a vast complex universe, is all hung-up on our sex lives since He apparently cares what we we do with our pototots and our pek-peks.
Sir, when you say non-interfering, does that mean that God you believe in does not do anything for mankind or for his creations for that matter? If yes, what does the God you believe in do?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 23, 2014 at 12:12 AM
Don't get wrong. I believe in God. But I believe in a benevolent, non-interfering God. Not a tyrannical, insecure God who needs to be worshiped constantly, who loves us by threatening to send us all in hellish torment if we don't obey His rules and who apparently, despite the fact that He's omnipotent and created a vast complex universe, is all hung-up on our sex lives since He apparently cares what we we do with our pototots and our pek-peks.
God of the Bible?
god of Koran?
god of Hindu?
Allah?
or god of "according to your expectation"?
Post by: barrister on Oct 23, 2014 at 04:02 PM
Sir, when you say non-interfering, does that mean that God you believe in does not do anything for mankind or for his creations for that matter? If yes, what does the God you believe in do?
Good point.
If sir Klaus believes there is a God, then why does God allow suffering in this world?
May sagot sa bible, pero hindi siya naniniwala sa bible. So, ano kaya ang kanyang view sa issue na yon?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 23, 2014 at 04:19 PM
God of the Bible?
god of Koran?
god of Hindu?
Allah?
or god of "according to your expectation"?
To be honest, I don't know. I believe in some form of a Supreme Being that created existence somehow. The nature of that Being, I don't claim to know. I do know He's not an old man in the sky who demands to be worshiped and gets offended when you masturbate.
Post by: tony on Oct 23, 2014 at 05:20 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 23, 2014 at 05:45 PM
To be honest, I don't know. I believe in some form of a Supreme Being that created existence somehow. The nature of that Being, I don't claim to know.
OK yon. You are a theist, but close to an agnostic.
An agnostic is neutral, meaning he neither believes nor disbelieves the existence of God, since that is something that is impossible for humans to know.
Maybe you are an agnostic?
religion equals lots of money, simple as that....
Sad but true.
I consider myself a Christian, but I don't belong to any formal religious sect.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 23, 2014 at 06:08 PM
To be honest, I don't know. I believe in some form of a Supreme Being that created existence somehow. The nature of that Being, I don't claim to know. I do know He's not an old man in the sky who demands to be worshiped and gets offended when you masturbate.
you can start a new religion based on how you percieve god in your own imagination... you can make lot of money as sir tony said... religion is money
im sure maraming follower yan... just like prosperity gospel...
hindi kaya ganoon ang pagkakakilala mo sa isang diyos since it conform somehow sa iyong mga personal belief... and if a particular god doesnt approve to one of your belief then that is not the true god....
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 23, 2014 at 06:31 PM
you can start a new religion based on how you percieve god in your own imagination... you can make lot of money as sir tony said... religion is money
I don't believe in organized religion.
But there is already a Church of sorts that's sort of kind of close to my beliefs: Unitarian Universalists. There's also something called the Universal Life Church whose only doctrine is pretty much, "DO WHAT IS GOOD."
Personally, if your God, dpogs, is the real God. I don't want to worship that God because your God is a homophobic vain jealous insecure tyrant. I'd rather go to hell than spend eternity with that kind of God. I'm dead serious too.
Post by: tony on Oct 23, 2014 at 07:31 PM
Sad but true.
I consider myself a Christian, but I don't belong to any formal religious sect.
Jesus Christ is a wonderful inspiration to pattern your life to...
unfortunately religion has minimized his true worth....
Post by: barrister on Oct 23, 2014 at 07:49 PM
I don't believe in organized religion.
But there is already a Church of sorts that's sort of kind of close to my beliefs: Unitarian Universalists. There's also something called the Universal Life Church whose only doctrine is pretty much, "DO WHAT IS GOOD."
Those religions are so liberal that they can't be considered to have any doctrine at all.
Nothing's wrong with that, but my problem is, why do they call themselves a religion? Because they are American in origin and US laws grant religions tax-exempt status?
That's what happened to Scientology. The founder initially claimed it to be science, not religion; then later called it the "religion of Scientology." Now, it claims to be a bona fide religion, and has tax-exempt status in the US.
My advice, don't join any religious organization. Just believe what your conscience tells you, without joining any formal organization.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 23, 2014 at 07:56 PM
Jesus Christ is a wonderful inspiration to pattern your life to...
unfortunately religion has minimized his true worth....
because religion is man made - RC, pentecostal, mormon, etc... we can live without religion... but we can't live without faith...
to be or being Christian is not man-made... it is God-made.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 23, 2014 at 08:11 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-76W11Go_zUU/UnLDLNE8NeI/AAAAAAAAAvE/UBH7w42AkOA/s1600/969161_718307851530597_75951217_n.jpg)
Post by: tony on Oct 23, 2014 at 08:12 PM
Post by: leomarley on Oct 23, 2014 at 08:55 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 23, 2014 at 09:19 PM
To be honest, I don't know. I believe in some form of a Supreme Being that created existence somehow. The nature of that Being, I don't claim to know.
Do you believe that when you die, you will be with your creator?
Jesus Christ is a wonderful inspiration to pattern your life to...
unfortunately religion has minimized his true worth....
Totoo yan. He is the ultimate example. Ang problema lang with some religion, if you don't belong to them, hindi ka na "saved". Ang problema pati, if you don't conform to their beliefs, you will be labelled a sinner. Well, in such cases, all of us are sinners pero ang problem lies when you do not confess your sins and ask forgiveness to God. Gaya nga ng sig ni dpogs, there is no righteous one. Walang perfect na tao. So what makes a member of a religion different from others? It's a matter of accepting the person for who he/she is, and sharing what you know would be right thing, and still maintaining RESPECT even if the person does not believe in you. For one, we should be a good example to others.
Post by: barrister on Oct 23, 2014 at 10:04 PM
pareho kami pananaw ni Klaus. Tara Klaus tayo na lang tayo religion natin! lel. ;D
Sir, I thought you were an atheist? (Theist pala si sir Klaus, sabi mo pareho kayo...)
Anyway, gumaganda yata ang trend ng discussion. Parang stating your own personal beliefs, without emphasizing why the other guy is wrong... :D
Post by: leomarley on Oct 23, 2014 at 10:28 PM
Sir, I thought you were an atheist?
Anyway, gumaganda yata ang trend ng discussion. Parang stating your own personal beliefs, without emphasizing why the other guy is wrong... :D
no i'm not an atheist. i don't think there's enough evidence to say na there is no higher being but i don't believe in organized religion. same kami ng pananaw ni Klause na that higher being is not the same one being told in the bible or other religious scripts. yes, i consider myself as an agnostic or somewhat of an anti-theist.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 23, 2014 at 10:32 PM
Do you believe that when you die, you will be with your creator?
I don't know. I hope. But I also hope it will not be with the Creator as described by religious conservatives. That Creator is a total a-hole.
Post by: leomarley on Oct 23, 2014 at 10:37 PM
I don't know. I hope. But I also hope it will not be with the Creator as described by religious conservatives. That Creator is a total a-hole.
i agree. it's like, that god made us just so there'll be someone to worship him. what makes him different from the greek/roman gods?
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:24 AM
Post by: tony on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:40 AM
Quote
Ang problema lang with some religion, if you don't belong to them, hindi ka na "saved". Ang problema pati, if you don't conform to their beliefs, you will be labelled a sinner.
and worst you will be killed, look at what is happening in the middle east and the "cradle of civilization"....
members of religious cults are like that, kung pwede lang patayin ang hindi nila kasapi.....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2014 at 08:15 AM
and worst you will be killed, look at what is happening in the middle east and the "cradle of civilization"....
members of religious cults are like that, kung pwede lang patayin ang hindi nila kasapi.....
Correct! Ako ang view ko jan, whatever sins na nagawa mo, it's between you and God. We are not suppose to be JUDGMENTAL to that person but accept him for who he is, just like what Jesus did.
Sir, I thought you were an atheist? (Theist pala si sir Klaus, sabi mo pareho kayo...)
Anyway, gumaganda yata ang trend ng discussion. Parang stating your own personal beliefs, without emphasizing why the other guy is wrong... :D
Totally agree with you atty.!
I don't know. I hope. But I also hope it will not be with the Creator as described by religious conservatives. That Creator is a total a-hole.
Pardon me sir, I am not a moderator pero as a reader of this topic, can we please refrain from making painful remarks? We all get hurt in the process tapos mag-bibitaw na naman tayo ng hindi magagandang salita over each other.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 24, 2014 at 08:38 AM
or do we know a judge na ang pinairal ay mercy instead of justice?
Anak: "Tatay, dapat ganito ang ugali mo... kasi kung hindi... ayaw kitang maging tatay!"
Judge: "Ako ay isang judge pero merong akong puso at mapagmakaawa, dahil dito hindi kita papatawan ng kaparusahan... patatawarin kita at walang kaparusahan."
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 01:15 PM
meron na ba tayong nakilala na leader, tatay, presidente, chairman, executive... na kung ano ang gusto (o ini-expect) ng mga follower, anak, nasasakupan, members niya iyon ang dapat na ginagawa o gawin niya? is it a good quality of a leader?
Actually one of the duties of a good leader is to listen to his/her subordinates, take note of their ideas and try to incorporate the good ones and be humble enough to admit mistakes.
A bad leader insists on doing things his way or the highway, does not listen at all to his followers and gets angry at anyone who has a better idea or points out any mistakes he made.
Quote
Pardon me sir, I am not a moderator pero as a reader of this topic, can we please refrain from making painful remarks? We all get hurt in the process tapos mag-bibitaw na naman tayo ng hindi magagandang salita over each other.
Who am I hurting by calling the God of religious conservatives a total a-hole? Napakasensitive naman ang God ninyo. A being so powerful he created the universe, but gets hurt with one, teeny-tiny speck of it calls him an a-hole?
What do you call a leader who lets SOME of his followers suffer, demands to be worshiped, thinks women should be subservient to men, thinks gays are immoral and is really nosey about your sex life and punishes you by burning you to hell if you masturbate but also insists that he loves you? That, my friends, is a totally sick individual.
And no, btw, I did not suffer some immense tragedy in my life. I'm just using logic here.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 24, 2014 at 03:12 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 03:26 PM
how do you know that your god is not like our God?
I never said I know. I don't know. I may believe but I don't know. I don't think you do know either. If you claim to know, you are delusional or lying.
I *do* know that IF your version of God is accurate, I do not wish to worship that God for reasons I've already stated.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 24, 2014 at 03:37 PM
you cant just accept that that God doesnt approve what you want...
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 24, 2014 at 03:50 PM
you cant just accept that that God doesnt approve what you want...
How in the world did you know that?
Post by: Tempter on Oct 24, 2014 at 03:52 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 03:55 PM
ahh God already reveals Himself to you... you have a conscience telling you that there is God...
My conscience is clear.
Quote
you cant just accept that that God doesnt approve what you want...
I have no interest in seeking the approval of your particular interpretation of a Supreme Being based on a particular branch of a religion that is then based on a 2,000 year old text translated and transcribed hundreds of times over a few centuries and arbitrarily decided upon by a group of dead men.
Sorry. Life is too short to worry about such things. My only motto in life what the quote you see above. No more, no less. Live a good life, do good things. Don't worry about dogma. If there's a God as He's really good and loving, He'll understand. But if He's the God of religious conservatives, I would rather go to hell than spend eternity with that a-hole.
Post by: dodie on Oct 24, 2014 at 04:36 PM
Ok lang yon sir, if that's what you believe. I don't impose my beliefs on others.
thats right atty, that is the only way to have a meaningful and sensible conversation/discussion para sa ganitong mga mainit na topic.
I don't believe in organized religion.
Personally, if your God, dpogs, is thereal god . I don't want to woship that god because your God is a homophobic vain jealous insecure tyrant. I'd rather go to hell than spend eternity with that kind of God. I'm dead serious too.
hypothetically, nakita mo yung tunay na dyos pero ayaw mo pa ding maniwala at sumunod. it only shows na kahit anong paliwanag dito, basta ayaw ng isip mo, hindi pwede sayo. what are you trying to prove to here? whats the point of having a discussion with you regarding this topic? eto bang mga stand and views mo ay pagpapakita lang ng iyong kagalingan at katalinuhan?
btw sir, you are not marcus aurelius!!
That Creator is a total a-hole.
this is very ill mannered and very disrepectfull comment to all those who believe in god! others myt tolelate this tirade, but some will not let this one pass.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:06 PM
I don't know. I hope. But I also hope it will not be with the Creator as described by religious conservatives. That Creator is a total a-hole.
Quote
Pardon me sir, I am not a moderator pero as a reader of this topic, can we please refrain from making painful remarks? We all get hurt in the process tapos mag-bibitaw na naman tayo ng hindi magagandang salita over each other.
Who am I hurting by calling the God of religious conservatives a total a-hole? Napakasensitive naman ang God ninyo. A being so powerful he created the universe, but gets hurt with one, teeny-tiny speck of it calls him an a-hole?
What do you call a leader who lets SOME of his followers suffer, demands to be worshiped, thinks women should be subservient to men, thinks gays are immoral and is really nosey about your sex life and punishes you by burning you to hell if you masturbate but also insists that he loves you? That, my friends, is a totally sick individual.
And no, btw, I did not suffer some immense tragedy in my life. I'm just using logic here.
Sir, I cannot tell you if the God that I am worshiping is sensitive or not. I can only speculate. But what I meant was, we (in bold letters) get hurt in the process.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:09 PM
hypothetically, nakita mo yung tunay na dyos pero ayaw mo pa ding maniwala at sumunod. it only shows na kahit anong paliwanag dito, basta ayaw ng isip mo, hindi pwede sayo.
If God, the God that you worship, would appear to you now and tells you to take a gun and kill a bunch of innocent children just to prove that you love Him, would you do it?
Quote
this is very ill mannered and very disrepectfull comment to all those who believe in god! others myt tolelate this tirade, but some will not let this one pass.
Only those who believe in the vain, jealous, homophobic, misogynist God who they use to justify their hatred of homosexuals and low opinion of women. The fundamentalist God.
I think believing in that God is dangerous because some people take it to the extreme by killing gays, bombing abortion clinics or even starting full-scale wars because they believe that this God told them to.
I use explicit, provocative language because I want more believers to think about what they believe more critically, to think for themselves, to try and look at where other people are coming from and to not just blindly follow things that their priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, etc. tells them.
Post by: dodie on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:23 PM
If God, the God that you worship, would appear to you now and tells you to take a gun and kill a bunch of innocent children just to prove that you love Him, would you do it?
Only those who believe in the vain, jealous, homophobic, misogynist God who they use to justify their hatred of homosexuals and low opinion of women. The fundamentalist God.
I think believing in that God is dangerous because some people take it to the extreme by killing gays, bombing abortion clinics or even starting full-scale wars because they believe that this God told them to.
I use explicit, provocative language because I want more believers to think about what they believe more critically, to think for themselves, to try and look at where other people are coming from and to not just blindly follow things that their priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, etc. tells them.
the last time i read our bible, in which you dont belive, wla namang sinasabi na kailangan kong pumatay para lang mapatunayan ko yung pagmamahal ko sa kanya!
and besides, ano ang palagay nyo sa amin? blind followers.. na sunod lang ng sunod sa sinasabi ng simbahan namin? and those fundamentalist god that your talking about, pangalanan mo yung relihiyon. hindi yong laging generalization of sort. sabihin mo kung katoliko, o muslim, o hudyo, o protestante o iglesia ni kristo! madali namang sabihin eh!
Post by: luis on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:32 PM
My conscience is clear.
I have no interest in seeking the approval of your particular interpretation of a Supreme Being based on a particular branch of a religion that is then based on a 2,000 year old text translated and transcribed hundreds of times over a few centuries and arbitrarily decided upon by a group of dead men.
Sorry. Life is too short to worry about such things. My only motto in life what the quote you see above. No more, no less. Live a good life, do good things. Don't worry about dogma. If there's a God as He's really good and loving, He'll understand. But if He's the God of religious conservatives, I would rather go to hell than spend eternity with that a-hole.
sir, allow me to draw a scenario.
if somebody calls you an a-h... because that person does not believe in a single word you are saying, how would you feel? i think the natural tendency is to feel some degree of insult.
i understand you are using hard words to make a point and that's you. but it's wiser to be sensitive to your readers.
:)
Post by: skooter on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:37 PM
Post by: luis on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:42 PM
Come to think of it "As you grow older the things that is happening all around you is such quite a mess!" and you sum it up is this a really good resume of a god?
kindly elaborate sir, what's your point? :)
Post by: skooter on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:46 PM
kindly elaborate sir, what's your point? :)don't worry in time you will understand it. :D
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:50 PM
the last time i read our bible, in which you dont belive, wla namang sinasabi na kailangan kong pumatay para lang mapatunayan ko yung pagmamahal ko sa kanya!
What about the story of Abraham and Isaac? God came down from Heaven and tells Abraham to sacrifice his son as offering to him.....and he was going to do it! I don't care if he was crying and was hesitant to do it.....BUT HE WAS GOING TO DO IT! When I was a kid, I was told that this is God's way of testing Abraham's love for him. As a kid, I thought it made sense but as an adult, I realized how f-ed up it is for a supposedly loving God to do that and how f-ed up Abraham is for not telling God to f**k off.
If you try doing that to your child. Give your child a puppy. Make him love that puppy. Then out of the blue, you tell your child, "If you love me, kill your puppy!" That's emotional abuse.
Quote
and besides, ano ang palagay nyo sa amin? blind followers.. na sunod lang ng sunod sa sinasabi ng simbahan namin?
If you follow and believe each and everything your church says without criticizing it, studying it and seeing if it makes sense (which is what many religious people do anyway because they don't like to think), then yes.
Quote
and those fundamentalist god that your talking about, pangalanan mo yung relihiyon. hindi yong laging generalization of sort. sabihin mo kung katoliko, o muslim, o hudyo, o protestante o iglesia ni kristo! madali namang sabihin eh!
All of the above.
Post by: luis on Oct 24, 2014 at 05:50 PM
don't worry in time you will understand it. :D
i might interpret your statement wrongly sir and i don't want that. it would be unfair to you that's why i wanted to understand better. :)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2014 at 06:09 PM
What about the story of Abraham and Isaac? God came down from Heaven and tells Abraham to sacrifice his son as offering to him.....and he was going to do it! I don't care if he was crying and was hesitant to do it.....BUT HE WAS GOING TO DO IT! When I was a kid, I was told that this is God's way of testing Abraham's love for him. As a kid, I thought it made sense but as an adult, I realized how f-ed up it is for a supposedly loving God to do that and how f-ed up Abraham is for not telling God to f**k off.
If you try doing that to your child. Give your child a puppy. Make him love that puppy. Then out of the blue, you tell your child, "If you love me, kill your puppy!" That's emotional abuse.
Allow me to answer it sir.
Genesis 22:2New International Version (NIV)
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”
You are very correct sir. Pero prior to this verse:
Genesis 12:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 “I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”
And:
Genesis 15:3-5New International Version (NIV)
3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.”
4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring[a] be.”
Genesis 21:12New International Version (NIV)
12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.
How can Abraham have descendants that will lead all nations if God will slaughter Abraham's son Isaac, in the prior verses Gen 21:12.
God knows what he said and probably so does Abraham. But still, to show obedience, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 06:22 PM
God knows what he said and probably so does Abraham. But still, to show obedience, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac.
What you said doesn't really disprove my point. At best, it's a phony dog-and-pony show and at worst, it's God being an emotionally abusive bastard.
But that's not the only Bible story with horrific implications. The lesson of the Adam and Eve story is: REMAIN STUPID AND BLINDLY OBEY. If you really deconstruct all the nuts and bolts of it, that's the takeaway.
It's the reason why religious institutions love poor people. Poor people can't afford proper education. The more educated you are, the more intelligent you are, the more you're likely to develop critical thinking skills, the more you develop critical thinking skills, the less religious you are likely to be and the less religious you're likely to be, the less money you are likely to give your churches.
Post by: dodie on Oct 24, 2014 at 06:47 PM
What about the story of Abraham and Isaac? God came down from Heaven and tells Abraham to sacrifice his son as offering to him.....and he was going to do it! I don't care if he was crying and was hesitant to do it.....BUT HE WAS GOING TO DO IT! When I was a kid, I was told that this is God's way of testing Abraham's love for him. As a kid, I thought it made sense but as an adult, I realized how f-ed up it is for a supposedly loving God to do that and how f-ed up Abraham is for not telling God to f**k off.
If you try doing that to your child. Give your child a puppy. Make him love that puppy. Then out of the blue, you tell your child, "If you love me, kill your puppy!" That's emotional abuse.
If you follow and believe each and everything your church says without criticizing it, studying it and seeing if it makes sense (which is what many religious people do anyway because they don't like to think), then yes.
All of the above.
una sa lahat, ang diyos ko ay si kristo. mRaming patotoo sa bibliya ang kristo ko ay hindi tulad ng diyos na sinasabi mo. kung ipipilit mo na ang kristo ko ay hindi makatarungang dyos, wala na akong magagawa sa paniniwala mo. believing in christ is the foundation of my faith. if your calling other gods as f..ng a-hole, then its up for their believers to defend it against you. but if you call my jesus christ an a-hole then i should do something to protect the foundation of my faith, the god that i believe in. and this will be so personal, and i promise you that!
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2014 at 06:50 PM
Sorry. Life is too short to worry about such things. My only motto in life what the quote you see above. No more, no less. Live a good life, do good things. Don't worry about dogma. If there's a God as He's really good and loving, He'll understand. But if He's the God of religious conservatives, I would rather go to hell than spend eternity with that a-hole.
I use explicit, provocative language because I want more believers to think about what they believe more critically, to think for themselves, to try and look at where other people are coming from and to not just blindly follow things that their priest, pastor, imam, rabbi, etc. tells them.
I'm not sure if the words you used fall under explicit and provocative.
Do you think you are going good things by using those languages? I don't know if anyone will agree here that it is good. IMHO, you don't need to use those languages because the readers are well educated. Educated enough to know what good and bad is.
What you said doesn't really disprove my point. At best, it's a phony dog-and-pony show and at worst, it's God being an emotionally abusive bastard.
But that's not the only Bible story with horrific implications. The lesson of the Adam and Eve story is: REMAIN STUPID AND BLINDLY OBEY. If you really deconstruct all the nuts and bolts of it, that's the takeaway.
It's the reason why religious institutions love poor people. Poor people can't afford proper education. The more educated you are, the more intelligent you are, the more you're likely to develop critical thinking skills, the more you develop critical thinking skills, the less religious you are likely to be and the less religious you're likely to be, the less money you are likely to give your churches.
I'm not again sure if everyone will agree here. Are you trying to say that people who believe in God (like you said you are) are not educated or intelligent?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:03 PM
una sa lahat, ang diyos ko ay si kristo. mRaming patotoo sa bibliya ang kristo ko ay hindi tulad ng diyos na sinasabi mo. kung ipipilit mo na ang kristo ko ay hindi makatarungang dyos, wala na akong magagawa sa paniniwala mo. believing in christ is the foundation of my faith. if your calling other gods as f..ng a-hole, then its up for their believers to defend it against you. but if you call my jesus christ an a-hole then i should do something to protect the foundation of my faith, the god that i believe in. and this will be so personal, and i promise you that!
If you read everything I say, I never called Jesus an a-hole. I called the God of religious conservatives and religious fundamentalists an a-hole. Never Jesus. Believe it or not, I believe and agree with His teachings.
However, I find many so-called Christians to be self-righteous hypocrites. I also don't find any spiritual or religious fulfillment in any church or any organized religious settings.
In fact, I'm more likely to be moved by a great film, an excellent piece of music, a good book, a beautiful play, a painting or going out and looking at the wonders of nature than any sermon, Bible study or church group could ever give me. I've had my share of those growing up in a Catholic school and being raised Catholic and it does nothing for me except maybe make me feel occasionally unnecessarily guilty. I also find reading up on other points of view apart from what I've been taught in Church (including atheistic points of view) to be more comforting and enlightening than just any PRAISE THE LORD type of Bible study.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:08 PM
Are you trying to say that people who believe in God (like you said you are) are not educated or intelligent?
There's a difference between being religious and believing in God. I believe in God but I'm not religious.
There IS however a scientific study that say that religious people are generally less intelligent. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:16 PM
There's a difference between being religious and believing in God. I believe in God but I'm not religious.
There IS however a scientific study that say that religious people are generally less intelligent. (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent)
Believing in God is the first step. Knowing Him is the next.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:39 PM
Believing in God is the first step. Knowing Him is the next.
I don't believe you can ever "know" God because if you can, there wouldn't be so many religions. If you tell me that you can actually KNOW God, you're a scam artist.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:45 PM
I don't believe you can ever "know" God because if you can, there wouldn't be so many religions. If you tell me that you can actually KNOW God, you're a scam artist.
You are right! But we can always exert effort in trying.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 08:29 PM
You are right! But we can always exert effort in trying.
Sure. But whatever it is, for me, it will DEFINITELY not be through religion. I prefer to exert my effort "know" God through the arts and sciences. I have nothing against people who are religious (as long as you're not harming people or imposing your morals on people who disagree with you) but to me, religion is largely a waste of time and only valuable as a cultural tradition. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find spirituality, fulfillment or comfort in religious dogma.
I guess it's because in most of my experience with religion involves people who claim to have all the answers. I know for a fact that that's simply not true.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 24, 2014 at 08:49 PM
Sure. But whatever it is, for me, it will DEFINITELY not be through religion. I prefer to exert my effort "know" God through the arts and sciences. I have nothing against people who are religious (as long as you're not harming people or imposing your morals on people who disagree with you) but to me, religion is largely a waste of time and only valuable as a cultural tradition. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find spirituality, fulfillment or comfort in religious dogma.
I guess it's because in most of my experience with religion involves people who claim to have all the answers. I know for a fact that that's simply not true.
You are correct. you cannot find that in religion. you just have to establish your own relationship with the Creator.
Post by: luis on Oct 24, 2014 at 10:51 PM
What you said doesn't really disprove my point. At best, it's a phony dog-and-pony show and at worst, it's God being an emotionally abusive bastard.
sir please stop associating derogatory words with God, it's offending for me. all I request is a little respect. in the same manner I am not critical of your stand.
we have a common grounds as you mentioned like: you believe in God, you agree and believe in Jesus' teachings and you find fulfillment in great movies, good music, a beautiful play, etc. same for me.
this implies that we have a common discernment of good and bad, we can build something from that. at the on set, I was already suspecting the idea of you having a very bad experience with religion or with religious people. having a bad experience on religion is not uncommon, just move forward.
let me share a story of two priests and two altar boys. on a Sunday mass, one altar boy accidentally spilled something on the altar and the priest scolded the poor boy right there and then. on another Sunday mass, the same incident happened involving another boy and another priest but the this time the priest just smiled at the boy and wiped the spot. when they grew old, the altar boy who was scolded became a rebel while the second altar boy who was understood by the priest became the president of his country somewhere in Europe.
happy reading and peace. :)
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 24, 2014 at 11:30 PM
this implies that we have a common discernment of good and bad, we can build something from that. at the on set, I was already suspecting the idea of you having a very bad experience with religion or with religious people. having a bad experience on religion is not uncommon, just move forward.
Actually, most of my experience with religion has been positive. Religion was even my favorite class in school at one point. There may have been a couple of instances when it wasn't but on the whole, yes, it's largely positive. Taking philosophy classes and reading about different points of view, religious and otherwise, on top of the constant meddling and self-righteous hypocrisies I see with a lot of religious people, as well as rules that are either detached from reality (contraception, divorce) and/or needlessly discriminatory/cruel (gays), all the scandals, etc. have contributed to my distaste for organized religion. Of course, there are liberal religions out there but I don't feel the need for it. Truth be told, I still go to church with my parents but only out of respect for them since I still live with them. If I was on my own, I'd probably only go in Christmas and Easter.
I also use strong language to wake you up into thinking. Filipinos do tend to be religiously conservative and a lot of them follow their faith blindly and blind respect towards religiosity and God and transitively have blind obedience and almost automatic respect towards priests and religious people. For me? No. Just because you're a priest, preacher or a religious person, it doesn't necessarily make you an automatic good person. You're just someone with an opinion. No more, no less.
Post by: barrister on Oct 24, 2014 at 11:48 PM
...Truth be told, I still go to church with my parents but only out of respect for them since I still live with them. If I was on my own, I'd probably only go in Christmas and Easter.
You'd voluntarily attend mass on Christmas and Easter?
Now that's surprising.
Study how they figured out the dates for Christmas and Easter and you'll find that they're both wrong. Christmas is not in December; Easter is not on Sunday.
That's one of the reasons why I stopped going to mass when I was in my 20s (I used to be a devout Catholic). If they can't get something as as simple as that right, they wouldn't be able to get the more complex doctrines right either.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 25, 2014 at 12:10 AM
You'd voluntarily attend mass on Christmas and Easter?
Now that's surprising.
I just like to, that's all. It's one part of my religious upbringing I will take with me always.
Quote
Study how they figured out the dates for Christmas and Easter and you'll find that they're both wrong. Christmas is not in December; Easter is not on Sunday.
I know. Christmas and Easter have Pagan origins. The Church only celebrate Christmas and Easter on those dates so that Pagans will convert to Christianity easily because they already have Pagan celebrations in those dates.
Quote
That's one of the reasons why I stopped going to mass when I was in my 20s (I used to be a devout Catholic). If they can't get something as as simple as that right, they wouldn't be able to get the more complex doctrines right either.
Yes, which is why I think we shouldn't bow our heads to their authority and we should DEFINITELY not make them run our government.
Post by: barrister on Oct 25, 2014 at 12:13 AM
I just like to, that's all. It's one part of my religious upbringing I will take with me always.
I think it's a waste of time.
But I don't know. You have your own reasons.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 25, 2014 at 02:24 AM
"doing good" according to him does not include insulting or cursing the god of other religions/faith... well wala na tayong magagawa ganyan ang gusto ng god niya... his god allows him to do that...
how about Allah? can you say the same thing?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 25, 2014 at 02:56 AM
how about Allah? can you say the same thing?
Allah is just "God" in Arabic. Arab Christians call their God "Allah" and Muslims pretty much worship the same God as the Christians and the Jews anyway.
I'm not mocking "God" per se. I'm criticizing certain people's IDEA of God.
Parang ganito:
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2008/01/addiscartoon1.jpg)
Post by: dpogs on Oct 25, 2014 at 03:14 AM
ang ibig mo bang sabihin na "critizing some people's idea of God" is to call their God an a-hole? well you really critized them well... hope your god can still forgive you... oh i forgot... according to your idea... your god is loving and will not put you in sufferring... well i really envy your god... puwede ko palang gawin kahit ano sa tingin ko ay tama and still god will not punish me or justice me....
is your god allows you to call other god a-hole? where do you based all your action, aside from law of our nation?
Post by: Moks007 on Oct 25, 2014 at 06:57 AM
Good luck Klaus.
Post by: Quitacet on Oct 25, 2014 at 07:13 AM
Post by: DVD_Freak on Oct 25, 2014 at 07:29 AM
Truth be told, I still go to church with my parents but only out of respect for them since I still live with them. If I was on my own, I'd probably only go in Christmas and Easter.
Well there goes your credibility down a notch. All these hard stance against religion complete with name-calling and offensive/derogatory words....yet you still go to church presumably every Sunday. It maybe out of respect for your parents. But if you feel strongly about your conviction, why bother?
Post by: Moks007 on Oct 25, 2014 at 08:10 AM
^ how about ishmael? Abraham might have thought God wants me to kill Isaac so that ishmael can start jumpstart my descendant-making operations?
I have to review the Bible history hehe.. But this is what I know. Ishmael's mother is from the maid Hagar, Ishmael's descendants will become the Palestinians. While si Isaac is from Sarah (true wife), which descendants will become the Israelites. So yun fighting ngayon between Palestinians and Israelites, they are actually brothers. This happened because Abraham and Sarah cannot have a child for the longest time and Sarah gave Hagar and thus Ishmael was born. They didn't trust God.
God told Abraham "from wikipedia"..God reassured Abraham that "in Isaac shall seed be called to thee." (Genesis 21:12) He also said that Ishmael would make a nation, "because he is thy seed". (Genesis 21:9–13)
Post by: Moks007 on Oct 25, 2014 at 08:23 AM
Post by: tony on Oct 25, 2014 at 09:13 AM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM
Klaus, If you at least step foot sa church then just pray for enlightenment.
If you read what I've been writing, I do go to church every Sunday with my parents purely out of respect. But very seldom does a priest say anything that a.) I don't already know or b.) actually enlightening.
Quote
Don't analyze too much,
I actually dislike being told to do this. Religion is about finding answers to what's the meaning of life and death. These are very heady and heavy topics. Of course I'm not gonna take everything a priest or a preacher says on face value. Oh and I'm also allergic to any priest or preacher or pastor who rails against homosexuals, sexual permissiveness and rock 'n' roll. Anyone who yaks their mouths on those topics are dangerous idiots in my book.
Quote
some questions will never be answered.
I know. And I'm actually fine with that.
Quote
Just buy yourself a Bible and read a few passages every night.
Tried it. Didn't work. If anything, it actually made me doubt the veracity of organized religion even more.
Quote
Don't get angry and don't always ask, why this and that. For me, yun mga questions on how humans got here, sufferings, question of fairness, insults, why this happened in the Bible etc. etc. will never be answered until you meet HIM.
Good luck Klaus.
Contrary to how I come across here, I'm not actually angry. I'm pretty at peace with the fact that I don't believe in organized religion. The term for someone like is a deist. Someone who believes in a Higher Power but rejects organized religion. I do like and respect the cultural aspects of religion that brings people together but I reject it as a primary source of enlightenment, knowledge and morality.
[/quote]
Post by: leomarley on Oct 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Post by: docelmo on Oct 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM
I believe the purest form "religion" was when the apostles were still preaching the gospel something in the
first century. After that numerous things were added and subtracted to "fit" the society at that time....prime example would Idolatry.
Just as one prof in a documentary commented: "The change in church from the first century on to the dark ages and present is so mind boggling!" It's like going into a tunnel and going out the other way in an entirely different and unrecognizable location!
Post by: Moks007 on Oct 25, 2014 at 11:42 AM
was watching the History channels' re run of the Guyana massacre, how can so many people be duped by the likes of Jim Jones?
There is also another one, yun sa Waco, Texas. I forgot the guys name. DEA or fire and tobacco police stormed its compound.
Religion, Especially Christianity, was destroyed or being destroyed when you have sectors like that taking advantage and using God's name. These are false prophets. In the Bible, Jesus said be careful because there will be a lot of false prophets. That is the problem. This is also the problem why people will be turned off and not believe in Christ.
During the medieval days diba you have people holding the Bible on one hand and a sword on the other hand. Before they go out killing, they will say, "in Jesus name" or "in God's name" or something in that nature. Kaya naging ganun na, people take advantage. Falsely using God's name.
Post by: Moks007 on Oct 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 25, 2014 at 04:18 PM
was watching the History channels' re run of the Guyana massacre, how can so many people be duped by the likes of Jim Jones?
Napanood ko yon.
May strategy ang mga ganyang kulto. They start with society's outcasts, welcome them with open arms, then gradually isolate them from the outside world. No contact with family, no newspapers, no TV, radio, etc. Puro Jim Jones lang ang naririnig.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Oct 26, 2014 at 11:14 PM
question lang. does your parents know your stance about religion? ako kasi alam ng mom ko na i'm agnostic and she's quite ok if don't go to church. she serves as a church usherette pa every sunday and saturday.
They do but they still would like me to go to church with them "just in case". Plus it's a way for me to spend time with the family.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 27, 2014 at 02:07 PM
you just interpret what you read in the Bible... its not people's idea of God... its yours...
E kaninong interpretasyon ba ang tama? Iisa lang ang source, which is the Bible, hindi pa magkasundo mga Christian religion.
Post by: luis on Oct 27, 2014 at 05:40 PM
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
:)
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 27, 2014 at 05:42 PM
for me, I simply follow the summary of all teachings:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
:)
Ang simple lang di ba?
Post by: luis on Oct 27, 2014 at 05:50 PM
Ang simple lang di ba?
it takes a lot of effort, patience, understanding and perseverance though. well, ganun talaga. :)
Post by: irememberhalloween on Oct 28, 2014 at 02:49 PM
question lang. does your parents know your stance about religion? ako kasi alam ng mom ko na i'm agnostic and she's quite ok if don't go to church. she serves as a church usherette pa every sunday and saturday.
My late grandfather was actually one of my most highly influential hero of opening my eyes on all these. Not music, neither them books. It actually makes sense. It’s great to see some with same view.
Oh my mother knows ofcourse, and I still get random breakfast table debates with her every once in a while when I’m at her place. Haha.
Post by: majoe on Oct 28, 2014 at 11:34 PM
What about the story of Abraham and Isaac? God came down from Heaven and tells Abraham to sacrifice his son as offering to him.....and he was going to do it! I don't care if he was crying and was hesitant to do it.....BUT HE WAS GOING TO DO IT! When I was a kid, I was told that this is God's way of testing Abraham's love for him. As a kid, I thought it made sense but as an adult, I realized how f-ed up it is for a supposedly loving God to do that and how f-ed up Abraham is for not telling God to f**k off.
If you try doing that to your child. Give your child a puppy. Make him love that puppy. Then out of the blue, you tell your child, "If you love me, kill your puppy!" That's emotional abuse.
i guess you failed to make a good review of this book, the Bible :)
i noticed that you delved too much on the story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac which did not consummate at all but you just ignored the part where God will sacrifice his only son Jesus.
Post by: irememberhalloween on Oct 29, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Sure. But whatever it is, for me, it will DEFINITELY not be through religion. I prefer to exert my effort "know" God through the arts and sciences. I have nothing against people who are religious (as long as you're not harming people or imposing your morals on people who disagree with you) but to me, religion is largely a waste of time and only valuable as a cultural tradition. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find spirituality, fulfillment or comfort in religious dogma.
I guess it's because in most of my experience with religion involves people who claim to have all the answers. I know for a fact that that's simply not true.
nuff said. cheers man.
Post by: barrister on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:32 PM
for me, I simply follow the summary of all teachings:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
:)
Good for you. But that's not the end of it; that's just the starting point.
Ang simple lang di ba?
Simple nga talaga, kasi starting point pa lang yan.
When confronted with a complex moral dilemma, those basic principles will not help.
Let's say there's a woman who was married in the Catholic church. When she discovers that the husband is keeping a mistress, she leaves the husband. Later, she meets another man; now she and the new man are happily living together.
One friend says it's OK according to the bible; another friend says according to the Catholic faith, the bible says she is living in sin.
Which view is correct?
Applying the two basic commandments will not give you the answer.
That is why Hebrews 5:12-14 says:
... You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
In 1 Cor. 3:1-2, Paul refers to the spiritually immature Christians as "infants in Christ"---
Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:36 PM
Simple nga talaga, kasi starting point pa lang yan.
When confronted with a complex moral dilemma, those basic principles will not help.
Let's say there's a woman who was married in the Catholic church. When she discovers that the husband is keeping a mistress, she leaves the husband. Later, she meets another man; now she and the new man are happily living together.
One friend says it's OK according to the bible; another friend says according to the Catholic faith, the bible says she is living in sin.
Which view is correct?
Applying the two basic commandments will not give you the answer.
That is why Hebrews 5:12-14 says:
... You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Again, it's simple. Do what you think is right, as long as wala kang naaabala or natatapakan. Living in sin ba? We'll see in the afterlife, if there is one.
Post by: barrister on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:43 PM
Again, it's simple. Do what you think is right, as long as wala kang naaabala or natatapakan. Living in sin ba? We'll see in the afterlife, if there is one.
The woman cannot decide which is right, so she cannot do what she thinks is right.
It's unfortunate that you didn't get it.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:45 PM
The woman cannot decide which is right, so she cannot do what she thinks is right.
It's unfortunate that you didn't get it.
You said they're already living happily together, so she has already decided.
What's unfortunate is that other people play God and judge her.
Post by: barrister on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:51 PM
You said they're already living happily together, so she has already decided.
They're happily living together, but her conscience is bothering her.
Mahirap talagang gisingin ang gising... ;D
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:53 PM
They're happily living together, but her conscience is bothering her.
Mahirap talagang gisingin ang gising... ;D
No, her "friend" is bothering her.
Hindi mo na kailangang gisingin ang gising, gising na nga e.
Post by: leomarley on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:55 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 29, 2014 at 04:57 PM
No, her "friend" is bothering her.
No, neither friend is bothering her.
Hindi mo na kailangang gisingin ang gising, gising na nga e.
Your'e not familiar with the expression?
what if the woman doesn't care about the Catholic church's view?
What if she does?
Not so simple anymore.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 29, 2014 at 05:06 PM
No, neither friend is bothering her.
Firstly, you said she is happy. Kung kinokonsensya sya, hindi sya dapat masaya. E, masaya nga sya e. Kaya lang sya "kinokonsensya" kasi yung isa nyang "kaibigan", ang sabi, "living in sin" sya.
Quote
Your'e not familiar with the expression?
I am.
Post by: leomarley on Oct 29, 2014 at 05:20 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 29, 2014 at 05:28 PM
If she did care about the Catholic church's views, she wouldn't be living in in the first place.
There are many Catholics who care about Catholic doctrine, yet still live in adulterous relationships.
And I agree with bumblebee. She was living happily until her religious friend put her in a sense of guilt. So again, religion complicates things.
No, she already had feelings of guilt, being a Catholic. The sense of guilt arose before she consulted her friends.
True, religion complicates things. But remember, the issue is: "Are the two basic commandments sufficient?" Therefore, the premise already includes religion. It's only a question of whether the 2 commandments suffice or not.
Post by: barrister on Oct 29, 2014 at 05:31 PM
I am.
I see. Ako naman pala ang hindi naka-gets... ;D
Firstly, you said she is happy. Kung kinokonsensya sya, hindi sya dapat masaya. E, masaya nga sya e. Kaya lang sya "kinokonsensya" kasi yung isa nyang "kaibigan", ang sabi, "living in sin" sya.
I mean parang yung "happily married," meaning they love each other. Kaya lang, Catholic siya, which doesn't allow it, that's why her conscience was bothering her.
Being bothered by her conscience came before she consulted the friend. In fact, it was the reason why she consulted them.
If you believe that following the dictates of your conscience is sufficient, ok yon sir. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly.
Hindi ako katulad ng iba na sinasabing ang atheists ay siguradong impiyerno na. On my old posts, I always said that the bible itself teaches that even atheists can attain salvation, but they will be judged according to their conscience, and not according to the bible's commandments for Christians.
But the issue here is a different matter --- assuming you believe in the bible's teaching that there are only 2 basic commandments, are they sufficient to live a righteous life or not?
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 29, 2014 at 05:49 PM
I mean "happily married," meaning they love each other. Kaya lang, Catholic siya, which doesn't allow it.
Being bothered by her conscience came before she consulted the friend. In fact, it was the reason why she consulted them.
Then revise the scenario you presented. You always say, wrong premise, wrong conclusion right?
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 29, 2014 at 05:54 PM
But the issue here is a different matter --- assuming you believe in the bible's teaching that there are only 2 basic commandments, are they sufficient to live a righteous life or not?
Yeah. Mas madali nga e. Two commandments lang.
Post by: barrister on Oct 29, 2014 at 05:59 PM
Then revise the scenario you presented. You always say, wrong premise, wrong conclusion right?
I tried to make the story as short as possible, which resulted in the exclusion of details that might be relevant to you, but irrelevant to me.
You asked for clarification, and I clarified.
Now everything is clear. But the premise is not wrong.
Yeah. Mas madali nga e. Two commandments lang.
Tama, mas madali nga. Pero hindi yon ang tanong.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 29, 2014 at 06:27 PM
I tried to make the story as short as possible, which resulted in the exclusion of details that might be relevant to you, but irrelevant to me.
You asked for clarification, and I clarified.
Now everything is clear. But the premise is not wrong.
The premise was wrong because you presented one thing and I take it as is. Marami pa palang details.
Quote
Tama, mas madali nga. Pero hindi yon ang tanong.
Ok, ano yung tanong?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Nov 17, 2014 at 10:07 AM
Quote
“I happen to believe in life after death, but I don’t think it’s got a thing to do with reward and punishment. Religion is always in the control business. And that’s something people don’t really understand. It’s in the guilt producing control business. And if you have Heaven as a place where you are rewarded for your goodness, and Hell as a place where you are punished for your evil, then you sort of have control of the population. And so they create this fiery place which is quite literally scared quite the hell out of a lot of people throughout Christian history. And it is part of a control tactic. But I think there is a sense in most religious life of reward and punishment in some form.
The Church doesn’t like for people to grow up. Because you can’t control grown ups. That’s why we talk about being born again. When you’re born again, you’re still a child. The people don’t need to be born again, they need to grow up. They need to accept their responsibility for themselves and the world. Every Church I know claims that “we are the true church”, that they have some “ultimate authority”. The idea that the Truth of God can be bound in any human system, by any human creed, by any human book is almost beyond imagination for me. God is not a Christian. God is not a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu, a Buddhist. All of these are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition. But I don’t believe my tradition defines God. I think it only points me to God.”
Amen!
I've always thought that the concept of "do good, you go to Heaven but do bad, you go to Hell" is so simplistic that if you base your philosophy and morality around that, para ka lang bata.
Post by: rascal101 on Dec 25, 2014 at 09:18 PM
The world was meant to be simplistic. Why give so much thought about life? We get born, we live for some time then we die.
Post by: leomarley on Jan 08, 2015 at 12:15 PM
(http://media3.policymic.com/OTkwMzkxZjg4NyMvT2ZvZTFZcFFOLVFkYjV4dldBVGt2a0hTRDRRPS8yOHgxMTY5OjIyNTV4MjU3NC84NDB4NTMwL2ZpbHRlcnM6cXVhbGl0eSg3MCkvaHR0cDovL3MzLmFtYXpvbmF3cy5jb20vcG9saWN5bWljLWltYWdlcy9laGh0aTQyaGZsaGFoZHdkdmhhdDhiYTI4dGloY3EzdHRyd3ZmaTVtYWNiODlmc21vazB1NXpiMHNxa3Rwa3RiLmpwZw==.jpg)
http://mic.com/articles/107908/why-every-newspaper-should-reprint-the-muhammad-cartoons-by-charlie-hebdo
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jan 08, 2015 at 12:40 PM
While we're at it, let's get rid of our antiquated blasphemy laws. Meron pa ba tayong ganoon?
Post by: rexFi on Jan 08, 2015 at 01:59 PM
What good is a man who keeps acting like an adult but fails to keep his words.
The world was meant to be simplistic. Why give so much thought about life? We get born, we live for some time then we die.
The writer of Ecclesiastes(my favorite book in the Bible) agrees with you. :)
Oh and belated Merry Christmas.
Anyway here is one of my favorite reasons why I believe in the Christian God: the Moral Argument.
By William Lane Craig
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument)
Quote
But do your examples even do that? The immorality of rape is immediately given in the seventh of the Ten Commandments “You shall not commit adultery.” Any sexual intercourse outside the bounds of marriage is proscribed by the Bible. So rape is always regarded as immoral in the Bible. That puts a quite different perspective on things.
What your complaint really is is that the penalties for rape in the passages you cite seem unduly lenient.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument#ixzz3OCtkfasJ
By Hayden Kho esteh John M. Njoroge from the Ravi Zacharias ministry website ;D :
http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/the-new-atheism-and-morality/ (http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/the-new-atheism-and-morality/)
Quote
A good example of a claim against religion that does not sit well with the facts of reality is issued in the form of a challenge to the believer to “name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.”
(1) We are expected to agree that no such action or statement exists and then conclude that morality does not depend on God.The problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The fact that a non-believer can utter moral statements and even act morally does not logically lead to the conclusion that morality does not depend on God, much less that God does not exist.
This challenge misunderstands the believer’s position on the relationship between morality and God.The believer’s claim is that the world owes its existence to a moral God. All human beings are moral agents created in God’s image and are expected to recognize right from wrong because they all reflect God’s moral character. The fact that human beings are the kinds of creatures that can recognize the moral imperatives that are part of the very fabric of the universe argues strongly against naturalism.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 08, 2015 at 02:42 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 08, 2015 at 02:47 PM
Priest says Hell is an invention to control people (http://www.delightfulknowledge.com/priest-says-hell-invention-church-control-people-fear)
Amen!
I've always thought that the concept of "do good, you go to Heaven but do bad, you go to Hell" is so simplistic that if you base your philosophy and morality around that, para ka lang bata.
Better to be simple than complicated. Life is meant to be simple NOT complicated.
Post by: greatauror28 on Jan 10, 2015 at 01:42 AM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jan 10, 2015 at 02:44 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 10, 2015 at 03:20 AM
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: "
Post by: tony on Jan 10, 2015 at 10:42 AM
Do you guys think na OA na yung mga namamanata sa Feast of the Black Nazarene?
the constitution guarantees free exercise of religion as well as self expression....
those who think that they were OA, yes they were, but learn to live with it...
Post by: Cruzader on Jan 10, 2015 at 10:53 AM
Too much faith, but doesn't use God's greatest gift... the brain.
Post by: tony on Jan 10, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 10, 2015 at 10:59 AM
Post by: tony on Jan 10, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Post by: luis on Jan 10, 2015 at 11:23 AM
people are people regardless...
one of my favorite Depeche Mode song. ;D
think before you talk
think before you act
think before you write
regardless whatever Belief you have. :)
Post by: tony on Jan 10, 2015 at 11:24 AM
Post by: heisenbergman on Jan 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM
that is why it is called faith...if they had brains would you think they will act that way?;D
Post by: tony on Jan 10, 2015 at 11:56 AM
true faith produces wisdom... :) what they have is blind faith.
in the bible, the book of wisdom is among my favorite reading materials...
Post by: jagged on Jan 11, 2015 at 12:05 AM
true faith produces wisdom... :) what they have is blind faith.
Unfortunately, that is required by some religions...
Post by: dpogs on Jan 11, 2015 at 01:38 AM
Unfortunately, that is required by some religions...
if majority of members of those religions acts foolishly... then what they have is a false/blind faith... false/fake religion requires false faith...
it doesnt matter whether you have a religon or none... as long as you have true faith...
Post by: leomarley on Jan 11, 2015 at 05:42 AM
Post by: ninjababez® on Jan 11, 2015 at 07:08 AM
and what is your definition of true faith?ako bro definition ko nyan my friends hehehe
Post by: leomarley on Jan 11, 2015 at 01:27 PM
ako bro definition ko nyan my friends hehehe
para sakin yung banda hahaha
Post by: ninjababez® on Jan 11, 2015 at 01:46 PM
para sakin yung banda hahahayes bro they are my friends! :)
Post by: leomarley on Jan 11, 2015 at 01:52 PM
yes bro they are my friends! :)
ayos ah hehehe. OT na tayo hahaha
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2015 at 12:56 AM
and what is your definition of true faith?
PM sent...
Post by: leomarley on Jan 12, 2015 at 05:57 AM
Post by: oweidah on Jan 12, 2015 at 07:17 AM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Feb 02, 2015 at 02:36 AM
Post by: barrister on Feb 02, 2015 at 09:25 AM
What would Stephen Fry, an atheist, say if he met God? (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/30/atheist-stephen-frys-response-to-what-he-would-say-if-he-met-god-levels-this-interviewer-video/)
Easy question. Wala bang mahirap-hirap na tanong para may challenge naman? :D
Post by: rascal101 on Feb 02, 2015 at 09:38 AM
Post by: Quitacet on Feb 02, 2015 at 10:04 AM
What would Stephen Fry, an atheist, say if he met God? (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/30/atheist-stephen-frys-response-to-what-he-would-say-if-he-met-god-levels-this-interviewer-video/)
parang ito:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/eye-burrowing-worms-national-t.html
Post by: barrister on Feb 02, 2015 at 10:23 AM
Yung kay Stephen Fry, bakit daw sa children, samantalang walang kasalanan ang children.
Remove "children" from the question, and the question becomes even easier.
Post by: dpogs on Feb 22, 2015 at 10:48 AM
dahil ibig sabihin nun ay sarili mo lang iniisip mo. diba christianity is doing good things for others? so ang premise mo ay mali na kaagad dahil simula pa lang ang objective mo ay salbahin ang sarili mo. lahat ng ginagawa mo na kabutihan pagsunod sa utos ng diyos ay para masalba ang sarili mo. magugustuhan ba ng diyos mo yun?
when it comes to salvation, there is no such word "for others"... salvation is personal...
when it comes to salvation, there is no such word "good works"... salvation is free...
Post by: sirhc on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:17 AM
You might be surprised, but I believe that according to the bible, God is omnipotent, but He is not omniscient or omnipresent.
This view is controversial, and it will require a very complex analysis.
Care to expound on that atty? I'm just curious, would being not omniscient and omnipresent would negate his being omnipotent? By the definition itself, an omnipotent being can technically be able to know everything and be everywhere.
My beliefs are based on the bible. Therefore, I restrict myself to the discipline of confining the concept of omnipotence as defined in the bible, not as defined in a dictionary or an encyclopedia.
I can't discuss it fully on this thread, since this thread is about atheism/agnosticism. But I'll be glad to expound if you will kindly repost your question here: http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141525.1170.html (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,141525.1170.html)
In the meantime, here's a brief overview:
1. God is not omnipresent. He is in heaven; he is not "everywhere."
2. God is not omniscient. He knows what we are thinking, but He does not know beforehand what we are going to think.
Post by: leomarley on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:43 AM
Post by: dpogs on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:46 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM
Sir Barrister, do you believe in Trinity?
yes I think he does:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,193367.msg2156340.html#msg2156340
Post by: shrek7 on Feb 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM
i respect yung paniniwala mo sir! Pero Ganyan pala sir ka-limited ang pagkakakilala mo sa kanya.
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 11:56 AM
Sir Barrister, do you believe in Trinity?
yes I think he does:
No, I don't. ;D
Iba yung naniniwala sa tatlo, iba yung naniniwala sa Trinity.
Hindi dahil lang may tatlo, ay Trinity na nga rin yon. For example --- barrister, Nelson and dpogs. Tatlo ba sila? Yes. Trinity ba sila? No.
May technical meaning kasi ang salitang "Trinity."
Sir Barrister, do you believe in Trinity?
No, I don't believe in the Trinity, since it's not biblical.
In the Trinitarian doctrine, there are three persons in one God ("hypostasis"). The three persons are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.
For example, si Mr. Cruz, holding 2 positions in a corporation --- president and gen. manager. Kung sino yung president, siya rin yung gen. manager. Therefore, kung ano ang alam ng president, alam din ng gen. manager, kasi si Mr. Cruz din yon.
This is nonsense, and can be demonstrated by the following verses:
1. When the disciples asked Jesus when the end of the age will come, He answered:
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mt. 24:36)
If the Father knows something that the Son does not know, it means they are not co-equal. Who is greater? The Father, of course. Kaya nga alam ng Father, hindi alam ng Son.
2. That's why Jesus said:
... for the Father is greater than I. (Jn. 14:28)
Meron ba namang co-equal and one in essence and power, tapos one is greater than the other? Maliwanag na mali ang Trinity doctrine.
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 12:01 PM
intersting point by sir barrister. if based sa bible, yes, he is not omnipresent but he sees everything. tama ba yon?
Yes, that's my belief.
For example, pag nanood ka ng Eat Bulaga sa living room mo, nakikita mo si Vic Sotto.
Does this mean you are in 2 places at the same time? No. You are in your living room, but you are not in the Broadway studio.
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 12:04 PM
@ sir barrister
i respect yung paniniwala mo sir! Pero Ganyan pala sir ka-limited ang pagkakakilala mo sa kanya.
I also respect your beliefs.
Pero kung tinatamad kang umintindi ng bibliya, at mas gusto mo yung basta tinatanggap na lang ang doktrinang itinuro sa iyo, OK lang sa akin yon.
Post by: shrek7 on Feb 27, 2015 at 12:29 PM
kaya nga sir i dont want to be tagged as catholic nor christian, dahil sa mga doktrina nila at dahil sa literal na pag suri nila ng bibliya, the way you do. di rin ako tinatamad sir intindhin, literal lang po siguro yung pagkaintindi nyo. I would rather be spiritual than religious.
I also respect your beliefs.
Pero kung tinatamad kang umintindi ng bibliya, at mas gusto mo yung basta tinatanggap na lang ang tinuro sa iyong doktrina, OK lang sa akin yon.
but I like your point sir sa holy trinity.
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 01:52 PM
but I like your point sir sa holy trinity.
Kung tama ang interpretation ko, bakit ganito naman ang sinasabi sa 1 John 5:7? ---
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
;)
Post by: shrek7 on Feb 27, 2015 at 04:55 PM
some people search the answers from external source like texts, data, research etc. and base their judgement on every word that is written. there are also some people who search from within, who does not need words nor logic, only gives trust to his heart and believe....
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 05:24 PM
sir, though I like your interpretation, It doesn't mean that I agree with you. it just shows that you have taken their meaning literally and use your logic and your left brain to assess what you believe is true :-)
I didn't say you agreed with me.
I said, supposing my interpretation is correct, how can it be reconciled with 1 John 5:7.
If you can't answer it, just say so. No need to beat around the bush.
some people search the answers from external source like texts, data, research etc. and base their judgement on every word that is written. there are also some people who search from within, who does not need words nor logic, only gives trust to his heart and believe....
My view is that God caused His word to be written so that we can have a basis for checking whether or not a certain doctrine is correct.
Your view is that we don't need to study the bible. All we need to do is trust our hearts.
That's the lazy way to do it. That's why we have all these baseless, contradictory doctrines going around.
Post by: leomarley on Feb 27, 2015 at 05:50 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:10 PM
bakit kasi di na lang lagyan ni god ng disclaimer per verse/chapter/book ang bible ;D
Haha! Maski lagyan yun ng disclaimer kung hindi naman babasahin ni Shrek. Hehe!
Post by: sirhc on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:18 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:19 PM
Kung tama ang interpretation ko, bakit ganito naman ang sinasabi sa 1 John 5:7? ---
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
;)
In your presumption, sa tingin ko, it does not clash with 1 John 5:7 because it talks about the oneness of the Three Personas.
Post by: rexFi on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:52 PM
*sir barrister does not believe in Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria etc
*does not believe in The Trinity...
*tapos yan pang Omni... :)
Ano po "denomination" or flavor niyo sir? ;D
Post by: dpogs on Feb 27, 2015 at 06:56 PM
(KJV) John 1:1 "n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
we all know that "the Word" is Jesus Christ... and John 1:1 says "the Word was God".
In the Trinitarian doctrine, there are three persons in one God ("hypostasis"). The three persons are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.
i am more convince sa term na "God in 3 person" .... rather than "3 person in one God"
also the word Trinity is just a term... we can't see that exact word in the Bible...
Hindi dahil lang may tatlo, ay Trinity na nga rin yon. For example --- barrister, Nelson and dpogs. Tatlo ba sila? Yes. Trinity ba sila? No.
For example, si Mr. Cruz, holding 2 positions in a corporation --- president and gen. manager. Kung sino yung president, siya rin yung gen. manager. Therefore, kung ano ang alam ng president, alam din ng gen. manager, kasi si Mr. Cruz din yon.
barrister, nelson and dpogs ay 3 persons yet they are all human.
- nelson is the employer and dpogs is the employee but it does not mean that nelson is greater than me for being a human.
- they have different role in this world but their essence of being human are equal.
God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit ay 3 persons yet they are God.
- these Three have different role in our life and in this world, yet their essence of being God are equal.
- these Three have different roles in the great plan of salvation, Father commands the Son, Father and Son commands the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit to believers.
"different role same essence"
2. That's why Jesus said:
... for the Father is greater than I. (Jn. 14:28)
Meron ba namang co-equal and one in essence and power, tapos one is greater than the other? Maliwanag na mali ang Trinity doctrine.
(KJV) Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, ..."
in order to finish the plan of salvation... Jesus subjected Himself to the will of the Father while in human form.
the "greatness" na sinasabi dito ni Jesus pertains to different roles in plan of salvation not the essence of being God.
Post by: dpogs on Feb 27, 2015 at 07:17 PM
1. When the disciples asked Jesus when the end of the age will come, He answered:
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mt. 24:36)
If the Father knows something that the Son does not know, it means they are not co-equal.
Jesus voluntarily limiting Himself as being in human nature. Sinabi niya ito while in human form.
When He spake to Simon son of Jonas after His resurrection (John 21) Jesus never corrected Simon when Simon say "Lord, thou knowest all things;" because wala na sa human form dito si Jesus... He freely exercise His divine power to appear and reappear sa kung saan niya gusto.
Post by: shrek7 on Feb 27, 2015 at 07:56 PM
I didn't say you agreed with me.
I said, supposing my interpretation is correct, how can it be reconciled with 1 John 5:7.
If you can't answer it, just say so. No need to beat around the bush.
Sir, I am not beating around the bush, it is clear that I don't agree with the first statement, though I like the way you explain it, So why would I bother reconciling it with 1John 5:7?
I do like the way you contradict your statement, I honestly don't know what side you are in
Your first statement Says that the Holy trinity are not equal, second statement says they are one and the same, and since you asked it, It has come to me that you already know the answer, please do enlighten me...
I didn't say that we should not study the Bible. there are just some people who choose to experience the essence of the bible from the heart, and there are people who just choose to know the word. Sir Barrister, there will always be the other side of the story.
My view is that God caused His word to be written so that we can have a basis for checking whether or not a certain doctrine is correct.
Your view is that we don't need to study the bible. All we need to do is trust our hearts.
That's the lazy way to do it. That's why we have all these baseless, contradictory doctrines going around.
Sorry for the laziness but my laziness has basis
"1 Corinthians 3:16
Do you not know that your body is the temple of The Spirit of Holiness who dwells within you, whom you have received from God, and you are not your own? "
My Laziness points me "within" which according to you is baseless. I do respect that, because I know that you only acknowledge the written text and not the essence of it.
Post by: shrek7 on Feb 27, 2015 at 08:27 PM
Haha! Maski lagyan yun ng disclaimer kung hindi naman babasahin ni Shrek. Hehe!agree!!! hehehe!
binabasa ko naman minsan...
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:06 PM
My Laziness points me "within" which according to you is baseless. I do respect that, because I know that you only acknowledge the written text and not the essence of it.
It is unfortunate that you fail to comprehend something so simple.
I stated clearly that I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine and explained why. Then I cited 1 John 5:7, the point being to show that 1 John 5:7 does not contradict my view even if it seems to do so at first glance.
Interpret 1 John 5:7 literally, and it proves the Trinity. Interpret it non-literally, and it does not prove the Trinity.
Which interpretation did I choose? The non-literal interpretation.
Yet you say I interpret literally. You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.
===============================================
You say you just trust your heart.
The bible says the unpardonable sin is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."
So give us the interpretation that your heart says ----
What is the meaning of the term, "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit"?
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:20 PM
@ Sir Barrister... i see... usually kasi ang hindi naniniwala sa "Trinity" or "God in 3 person" can easily say that God is not omnipresen and omniscient...
OK lang yon sir.
Hindi na ako makikipagtalo sa iyo because I know you have given a lot of time and effort in enriching your own beliefs by diligent study.
All I ask is that you hear me out, even if you have a different viewpoint.
Post by: shrek7 on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:20 PM
. sorry if this is the case, but please do enlighten me why the 2nd statement is not contradictory to the 1st? isn't it much easier to just tell your reason why it is not contradictory at the first place rather than asking someone like me to interpret and reconcile both statements for you? wherein you already know the answer?
It is unfortunate that you fail to comprehend something so simple.
I stated clearly that I do not believe in the Trinity doctrine and explained why. Then I cited 1 John 5:7, the point being to show that 1 John 5:7 does not contradict my view even if it seems to do so at first glance.
Interpret 1 John 5:7 literally, and it proves the Trinity. Interpret it non-literally, and it does not prove the Trinity.
Which interpretation did I choose? The non-literal interpretation.
Yet you say I interpret literally. You really don''t seem to know what you're talking about.
please do explain, im really interested. TIA
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:30 PM
. sorry if this is the case, but please do enlighten me why the 2nd statement is not contradictory to the 1st? isn't it much easier to just tell your reason why it is not contradictory at the first place rather than asking someone like me to interpret and reconcile both statements for you? wherein you already know the answer?
please do explain, im really interested. TIA
Sorry if I misunderstood.
I normally don't explain to those who are not interested.
In your case, I thought you had a closed mind. It turns out hindi naman pala. My mistake.
======================================
You're talking about 1 John 5:7?
That verse is the one that is most frequently cited by those who believe in the Trinitarian doctrine.
There are 2 reasons why that verse does not prove the Trinity:
1. The majority view among bible scholars is that 1 John 5:7 is a fake addition, called an "interpolation."
Bible scholars call it the "Johannine Comma." http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html)
2. Assuming that the Johannine Comma is authentic, the phrase "these three are one" does not automatically point to the Trinitarian doctrine. It only means that they are "united."
That is why the bible says husband and wife become "one flesh" (Eph. 5:31) even if they are literally separate and distinct. It means they are spiritually "one" or spiritually "united."
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:38 PM
In your presumption, sa tingin ko, it does not clash with 1 John 5:7 because it talks about the oneness of the Three Personas.
Ayan na yung sagot ko sa previous post ko sir. The more important reason is that the verse is a fake addition.
Si sir Nelson ang matiyagang pumapatol sa mga tanong ko, even if we have some differences in doctrinal views... ;)
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:42 PM
AFAIK
*sir barrister does not believe in Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria etc
*does not believe in The Trinity...
*tapos yan pang Omni... :)
Ano po "denomination" or flavor niyo sir? ;D
I am not a member of any denomination. That is why I have no vested interest in denominational doctrines.
Pag ang isang tao kasi ay indoctrinated na sa isang view, mahirap nang kumbinsihin yon na mali ang doktrina niya. In my case, I can readily accept the views I think are correct, wala kasi akong pinagtatanggol na religious sect.
I used to be a devout Catholic, then I left the Catholic Church, then I became an atheist, then I studied the bible and was convinced that it is the Word of God.
Post by: barrister on Feb 27, 2015 at 09:52 PM
^Atty, more of the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent please. :)
Pasensiya ka na sir, natabunan na yung tanong mo, bigla kasing dumami ang mga post dito.
=================================================
Walang problema sa "omnipotent." Maliwanag sa bible na all-powerful Siya.
So, sa omniscient muna tayo. Example, yung Adam and Eve story.
Just use your logic ---
Assuming alam ng Diyos na kakainin ni Adan ang forbidden fruit. Ginawa pa niya si Adam, tapos nilagyan ng forbidden fruit ang Garden of Eden, tapos pinagbawal ang fruit na yon, ang penalty = death pag kinain niya.
Alam naman pala Niya na kakainin ni Adan, bakit ginawa pa Niya ang lahat na yon? Dahil nilalaro lang Niya ang tao? Alam Niya na kakainin, tapos nang kinain, paparusahan ng death penalty? E di niloloko lang Niya tayo?
Ang sagot ay simpleng-simple. Hindi alam ng Diyos kung kakainin ni Adan o hindi, that's why God had to test Adam.
Here's another proof that God is not omniscient, which I had already posted previously:
The story would be perfectly clear if you recognize that, contrary to popular belief, God is not omniscient; otherwise, the story would not make any sense.
The Genesis story of Abraham and Isaac is one proof that God is not omniscient regarding matters concerning human free will.
To test Abraham, God commanded him to slay his only son Issac as an offering. As Abraham was about to slay his son with a knife, God said to Abraham through an angel:
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22:12)
God did not say that He knew what Abraham was going to do even before he was tested. God said "now I know", meaning that God knew only at that moment, not beforehand.
How did God know? Because God is omniscient?
No. God knew only when He saw that Abraham was ready to slay his son.
And that is why we are on this earth. We are here to be tested, in order to find out if we are worthy to be with God in heaven. Why does God have to test us to find out if we should be in heaven or in hell? Because God is not omniscient.
So you will see that God is not omniscient in only one aspect --- man's free will.
If God knows everything, including what we will decide using our free will before we decide it, that will be tantamount to negating our free will.
Post by: leomarley on Feb 27, 2015 at 10:44 PM
I used to be a devout Catholic, then I left the Catholic Church, then I became an atheist, then I studied the bible and was convinced that it is the Word of God.
Would just like to know how you were convinced since you were an atheist before, if it's ok to ask?
Post by: Moks007 on Feb 28, 2015 at 12:04 AM
I used to be a devout Catholic, then I left the Catholic Church, then I became an atheist, then I studied the bible and was convinced that it is the Word of God.
Sir, i am so happy for you. Congrats for finding the Word of God. Keep it up. It is a start.
Here is from the book of Luke
Luke 15:1-7 New International Version (NIV)The Parable of the Lost Sheep
15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”
3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 28, 2015 at 01:01 AM
Ayan na yung sagot ko sa previous post ko sir. The more important reason is that the verse is a fake addition.
Sir, based on the link you provided, from the latin vulgate translation, it was translated to greek, then duon nadagdag?
It is also true na madaming addition to the bible from hebrew. Ang alam ko, this is because most of the original manuscripts were intentionally burnt or lost. I dunno who ordered the burning and if it's true. However, since super daming translations and copies that were already out, these copies/translations were collected and dun kinuha yun books. Any "spurious" addition made within the bible should not affect the idea, concept or message of the bible.
2.
Before we talk about the Trinitarian doctrine, atty., pwede ba paki-share yun Trinitarian doctrine and specifically the definition of co-equal?
3.
The story would be perfectly clear if you recognize that, contrary to popular belief, God is not omniscient; otherwise, the story would not make any sense.
The Genesis story of Abraham and Isaac is one proof that God is not omniscient regarding matters concerning human free will.
To test Abraham, God commanded him to slay his only son Issac as an offering. As Abraham was about to slay his son with a knife, God said to Abraham through an angel:
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22:12)
God did not say that He knew what Abraham was going to do even before he was tested. God said "now I know", meaning that God knew only at that moment, not beforehand.
How did God know? Because God is omniscient?
No. God knew only when He saw that Abraham was ready to slay his son.
And that is why we are on this earth. We are here to be tested, in order to find out if we are worthy to be with God in heaven. Why does God have to test us to find out if we should be in heaven or in hell? Because God is not omniscient.
In Gen 17:15
15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”
So prior to testing Abraham, God already told Abraham that he will be given a son. Abraham already knew the destiny of Isaac so despite God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham probably know that this is a test of faith. I also agree with you that this is still a test of faith because kung ako si Abraham, sasabihin ko "Bakit i-sacrifice ko si Isaac? How will You establish a covenant with him and for his descendants?
19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac.[d] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
But because Abraham is faithful, he followed God's command.
4.
Walang problema sa "omnipotent." Maliwanag sa bible na all-powerful Siya.
So, sa omniscient muna tayo. Example, yung Adam and Eve story.
Just use your logic ---
Assuming alam ng Diyos na kakainin ni Adan ang forbidden fruit. Ginawa pa niya si Adam, tapos nilagyan ng forbidden fruit ang Garden of Eden, tapos pinagbawal ang fruit na yon, ang penalty = death pag kinain niya.
Alam naman pala Niya na kakainin ni Adan, bakit ginawa pa Niya ang lahat na yon? Dahil nilalaro lang Niya ang tao? Alam Niya na kakainin, tapos nang kinain, paparusahan ng death penalty? E di niloloko lang Niya tayo?
Ang sagot ay simpleng-simple. Hindi alam ng Diyos kung kakainin ni Adan o hindi, that's why God had to test Adam.
Here's another proof that God is not omniscient, which I had already posted previously:
So you will see that God is not omniscient in only one aspect --- man's free will.
If God knows everything, including what we will decide using our free will before we decide it, that will be
tantamount to negating our free will.
In Acts 2:23
23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Hindi kaya mag-contradict yun? Or, hindi kaya during the genesis, God chose not to use His omniscience over Adam & Eve since they were His precious creations to test the limits of man's free will? On the other hand, magiging circular naman kung sasabihin ko na God already knows the limits of man's free will, why test it?
Post by: barrister on Feb 28, 2015 at 11:15 AM
Sir, i am so happy for you. Congrats for finding the Word of God. Keep it up. It is a start.
Here is from the book of Luke
Luke 15:1-7 New International Version (NIV)The Parable of the Lost Sheep
Salamat sir.
Being convinced of the truth of the bible was a long process for me. Hindi yung bigla na parang tinamaan ng kidlat galing sa langit.
Would just like to know how you were convinced since you were an atheist before, if it's ok to ask?
Sure, I'll be glad to tell you about it.
As an atheist, I was convinced that the evolution theory was correct. After I began to doubt the evolution theory and ultimately concluded that it was founded on highly speculative presumptions, I started studying the bible.
At first, the bible seemed to be full of illogical concepts and contradictions. But after decades of study, I found that the concepts are in fact very logical and the seeming contradictions can be easily reconciled.
Post by: barrister on Feb 28, 2015 at 11:40 AM
1.
Sir, based on the link you provided, from the latin vulgate translation, it was translated to greek, then duon nadagdag?
It is also true na madaming addition to the bible from hebrew. Ang alam ko, this is because most of the original manuscripts were intentionally burnt or lost. I dunno who ordered the burning and if it's true. However, since super daming translations and copies that were already out, these copies/translations were collected and dun kinuha yun books. Any "spurious" addition made within the bible should not affect the idea, concept or message of the bible.
Paano nilang nasabi na dinagdag? Yan ang starting point dapat.
Ang process niyan, the original is the first manuscript written by the author. Then scribes made other manuscripts by way of handwritten copies. The original language for the Old Testment is Hebrew; for the New Testament, Greek and Aramaic. The existing manuscripts are all copies. None of the original manuscripts exist, because they were all lost.
Magkakaroon ka ng duda sa authenticity pag may lumilitaw na addition sa mas bagong edition. Kasi mas reliable yung mas luma. Therefore, it is a process of comparison with all available copies, with greater reliability being placed on older copies. In addition, the comparison should take into consideration its consistency with other parts of the bible. Pag biglang naiba ang consistency, malamang fake yon.
Ang sabi sa article, unang lumitaw ang Johannine Comma on only 4 of the medieval manuscripts. Latin manuscript pa, meaning translated na from the original Greek. Nang nagkaroon ng Latin Vulgate manuscripts, madalas nang incorporated ang additon na yon.
From the Latin Vulgate, nakopya yung mali sa later Greek manuscripts and printed editions. Tuloy-tuloy sa mas bagong printed editions, kasama na ang Johannine Comma.
Today, if you are serious about bible study, you will not be misled. The more reliable printed bible versions indicate the addition.
The NIV is one of the most reliable modern versions. Look at 1 John 5:7-8 in NIV: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5&version=NIV)
Note that the addition was removed. Now, click on footnote "a" under verse 8, and read the annotation.
Post by: barrister on Feb 28, 2015 at 01:32 PM
2.
Before we talk about the Trinitarian doctrine, atty., pwede ba paki-share yun Trinitarian doctrine and specifically the definition of co-equal?
I can't give you an accurate description of the Trinitarian doctrine because it is not biblical, and diferent sects have different and confusing definitions. It is just a human invention that is not found in the bible.
Therefore, pag inexplain ko yon, ang basis ko ay hindi bible, kundi yun lang mga iba-ibang variations ng explanation ng iba-ibang sekta.
Yung co-equal, iba-iba rin ang explanation. In Catholic doctrine, co-equal means they are all alike, eternal and omnipotent.
Omnipotent means all-powerful. A being cannot be omnipotent if there is someone more powerful than him. Christ said the Father is greater than Him. If there is someone greater than Christ, then Christ cannot be all-powerful. If one is omnipotent and the other is not, then they are not co-equal.
Very simple logic. Madaling intindihin if you have an open mind. Mahihirapan ka lang intindihin pag sarado na ang isip sa doktrinang kinagisnan.
In the bible, the Son had a beginning, because he was begotten by the Father. Begotten means to be born of, or to be brought forth. That's why the bible says:
7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalms 2:7)
Who is speaking and who is being spoken to? It's the Father speaking to the Son, as quoted and explained by other verses as follows:
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. (Acts 13:33)
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? (Heb. 1:5)
The Father is eternal, because He had no beginning. But the Son had a beginning, therefore the Son is not eternal. Therefore, if one is eternal and the other is not, then they are not co-equal.
Sabi ni sir dpogs, sabi lang ni Jesus na the Father is greater than Him, kasi noong panahong yon, nasa katawang tao pa lang si Jesus.
That is not correct. The Father has always been and will always be greater than the Son. Sa katunayan, in the future, after the end times, Christ, who no longer has human form, will still be below the Father and not co-equal to Him:
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28)
Post by: barrister on Feb 28, 2015 at 02:18 PM
4.
In Acts 2:23
23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
Hindi kaya mag-contradict yun?
Walang contradiction yon, kasi magkaibang topic.
God's "deliberate plan" is the plan of salvation. Ano yung plano? The price of salvation is death. Someone without sin should die for the forgiveness of our sins. Why send His Son? Because the Son is the only one without sin, and therefore the only one qualified. Why did the Son have to come here in human form? Because the Son had to die, and He cannot die if he did not have a human body; thus only the physical body died (Jesus), and not the Christ.
The "foreknowledge" is referring to the Father's plan of salvation that was conceived in the past, then later implemented in the future. It is not referring to God's foreknowledge about how a particular person will decide using his own free will even before that person makes his decision.
At the time God formulated the plan, He already knew about the wickedness of man, which is why it was already obvious to Him that the one He would send would be killed by men.
Madali lang namang malaman na papatayin Siya. All Jesus had to do was claim that he is God, siguradong pagpaplanuhan nang patayin na yon ng mga Hudyo.
Example:
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (Jn. 8:56-59)
Jesus is saying that He existed even before Abraham was born, and referred to Himself as "I am," implying that He is also God. That's all it took for the Jews to want to stone Him to death for the crime of blasphemy.
But Jesus hid himself. Bakit nagtago si Jesus? Duwag ba Siya? Hindi. Kailangang magtago Siya kasi kung hindi, doon pa lang, patay na agad Siya, e hindi Siya puwedeng mamatay agad, kasi bagong umpisa pa lang ang ministry Niya. Kailangang lumaganap muna ang ministry Niya for around 3 years bago Siya mamatay.
Therefore, kung kailan gusto ng Diyos na mamatay si Jesus, madali lang yon, kahit hindi magkaroon ng manipulation ng human free will. Kaya nga sa trial ni Jesus, derecho na Niyang sinabi na Diyos Siya, kasi panahon na Niyang mamatay, at alam Niya na pag derecho Niyang sinabi yon sa harap mismo ng High Priest, siguradong death penalty na Siya:
63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. (Mt. 26:63-66)
Or, hindi kaya during the genesis, God chose not to use His omniscience over Adam & Eve since they were His precious creations to test the limits of man's free will? On the other hand, magiging circular naman kung sasabihin ko na God already knows the limits of man's free will, why test it?
Yes, it's possible that God is omniscient but decided not to use His omniscience because He did not want to disrupt man's free will. But that is a possibility that is highly speculative and has no basis in the bible.
All we are shown in the bible is that God did not know beforehand what Adam would decide to do, just as He did not know beforehand what Abraham would decide to do.
The discipline in studying the bible is to resist interjecting our own speculations. The information in the bible is complete, but it is only complete for purposes of our salvation; it is not complete if we add other purposes to the mix. If it is not in the bible, it means that area of knowledge is unnecessary for purposes of our salvation.
Post by: shrek7 on Mar 01, 2015 at 03:10 PM
sorry for the late reply, thank you for the explanation!
Sorry if I misunderstood.
I normally don't explain to those who are not interested.
In your case, I thought you had a closed mind. It turns out hindi naman pala. My mistake.
======================================
You're talking about 1 John 5:7?
That verse is the one that is most frequently cited by those who believe in the Trinitarian doctrine.
There are 2 reasons why that verse does not prove the Trinity:
1. The majority view among bible scholars is that 1 John 5:7 is a fake addition, called an "interpolation."
Bible scholars call it the "Johannine Comma." http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html (http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html)
2. Assuming that the Johannine Comma is authentic, the phrase "these three are one" does not automatically point to the Trinitarian doctrine. It only means that they are "united."
That is why the bible says husband and wife become "one flesh" (Eph. 5:31) even if they are literally separate and distinct. It means they are spiritually "one" or spiritually "united."
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 03, 2015 at 09:52 PM
I can't give you an accurate description of the Trinitarian doctrine because it is not biblical, and diferent sects have different and confusing definitions. It is just a human invention that is not found in the bible.
Therefore, pag inexplain ko yon, ang basis ko ay hindi bible, kundi yun lang mga iba-ibang variations ng explanation ng iba-ibang sekta.
Yung co-equal, iba-iba rin ang explanation. In Catholic doctrine, co-equal means they are all alike, eternal and omnipotent.
I agree with you. Medjo magulo nga talaga ang trinitarian doctrine. I don't want to get into that.
In the bible, the Son had a beginning, because he was begotten by the Father. Begotten means to be born of, or to be brought forth. That's why the bible says:
7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalms 2:7)
Who is speaking and who is being spoken to? It's the Father speaking to the Son, as quoted and explained by other verses as follows:
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. (Acts 13:33)
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? (Heb. 1:5)
The Father is eternal, because He had no beginning. But the Son had a beginning, therefore the Son is not eternal. Therefore, if one is eternal and the other is not, then they are not co-equal.
Sabi ni sir dpogs, sabi lang ni Jesus na the Father is greater than Him, kasi noong panahong yon, nasa katawang tao pa lang si Jesus.
That is not correct. The Father has always been and will always be greater than the Son. Sa katunayan, in the future, after the end times, Christ, who no longer has human form, will still be below the Father and not co-equal to Him:
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28)
Begotten in it's context alone would mean to be born of. But let's look at the bible's begotten in greek and it's context. The word used was monogenēs.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=KJV
The word was also used in Hebrew 11:17
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Other than being the physical father of Isaac, it was also isaac who inherited the promise of God to Abraham. Abraham had 2 sons but it Isaac who is begotten, monogenes. So in it's greek form, it means the person who inherit, who in relation to the parents.
The concept of time started only after the conception of the world and man.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So even before the world was created, the Word was already present. And the Word was made flesh in Jesus after the world was created. The Son, emanates from the Father. Hindi ka naman pwedeng tawaging father kung wala kang anak.
Re powers of the Son and the Father, i can see your concept and it is correct. In Phil 2, it is said:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Sorry can medjo kinda magulo ang explanation ko. Hindi ko ma-condense ang mga binasa ko. hehe! But i'm sure bro atty. Barrister can get the hang of it.
Post by: barrister on Mar 04, 2015 at 09:30 AM
Begotten in it's context alone would mean to be born of. But let's look at the bible's begotten in greek and it's context. The word used was monogenēs.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=KJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=KJV)
No, "monogenes" does not simply mean "begotten." Monogenes means the "only begotten."
Pag sinabi mong "begotten" lang, "genēs" (genos) lang yon --- nasaan na yung "mono"? Alam mo na yung meaning ng "mono" sa Greek --- isa lang. Kaya nga pag one channel lang, mono; pag sobrang daming channel, Atmos (joke :D ).
Tama ang reference mo sir. According to Strong's Numbers, "monogenes" means "single of its kind, only." It means it is unique, or the only one.
Men can be called sons of God. Angels can also be called sons of God. But not "the only begotten Son of God," since Christ is the only one who can be called the only begotten.
Additional note:
Most English versions render John 1:18 as the only begotten Son. The correct translation should be the "only begotten God" (monogenes Theos).
See the Greek interlinear for John 1:18: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1.htm)
Post by: barrister on Mar 04, 2015 at 09:36 AM
The concept of time started only after the conception of the world and man.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So even before the world was created, the Word was already present. And the Word was made flesh in Jesus after the world was created. The Son, emanates from the Father. Hindi ka naman pwedeng tawaging father kung wala kang anak.
First of all, I want to make sure that I am clear about this issue --- the Son existed before he became flesh.
Let's be clear about that point, because I suspect that you might be thinking that I believe the Son only appeared when He was born of Mary. That's the belief of the Unitarians, but I disagree with them.
The Unitarians don't believe in the Trinity, pareho kami sa aspect na yon. But they also believe that the Son started existing only when he was born of the flesh, which is contrary to the very basic teachings of the bible.
In my case, I believe the Son existed from the very beginning. That's why John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word." That means the Son existed before the creation of the angels, or of the universe, or of the world.
Hindi puwedeng nauna pa ang mga anghel sa Anak. Otherwise, sana sinabing in the beginning were the angels, hindi in the beginning was the Word.
Hindi rin sinabing in the beginning was the Father, kasi the Father, being eternal, had no beginning. But the Son had a beginning because He was begotten by the Father.
When was the Son begotten by the Father? In the beginning. Kaya nga in the beginning was the Word.
Before the beginning, nandoon na yung Father, pero wala pa yung Son. In the beginning, the Son was begotten by the Father. Later, the Son "was made flesh and dwelt among us."
Post by: barrister on Mar 04, 2015 at 10:06 AM
Re powers of the Son and the Father, i can see your concept and it is correct. In Phil 2, it is said:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Sorry can medjo kinda magulo ang explanation ko. Hindi ko ma-condense ang mga binasa ko. hehe! But i'm sure bro atty. Barrister can get the hang of it.
Tama rin, pero in essence, ibang topic talaga ang pinag-uusapan sa verses na yan sir.
Ang topic diyan, it answers this question --- Is the Son God or man?
The NIV renders it this way:
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
According to Catholic doctrine, Christ has a dual nature: He is both fully God and fully man. Pero mali din yon.
The verses explain that the Son is God. Ang sabi, He is God in His very nature. E di Diyos nga.
Pero nagkatawang-tao daw Siya. E di hindi nga tao, kasi nagkatawang-tao lang. Kung ikaw ay tao, hindi ka magkakatawang-tao, kasi tao ka na nga talaga. Magkakatawang-tao ka lang kung hindi ka talaga tao.
That's why the verses say He was only made in human likeness, and that he was only "in appearance as a man" when He was born of Mary as a man.
Ang sabi, the son did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. The implication is that the Son is equal to the Father.
Akala ko ba the Father is greater than the Son, therefore they are not equal? Does that verse disprove my view? No.
Ang topic kasi, ang Anak ba ay Diyos o tao. Pag sinabing they are equal, it only means the Son is God, just as the Father is God. They are equal in the sense that they are both Gods.
Parang ganito:
St. Paul is greater than you. Yet you are equal in the sense that you are both humans.
Kung anghel si St. Paul, you and St. Paul are not equal in nature, because man is lower than the angels (Ps. 8:5, quoted in Heb. 2:7). Pero pareho kayong tao ni St. Paul, therefore you and St. Paul are equal in nature. Yet St. Paul is greater than you because he was an apostle who taught the word of God to the Gentiles.
Ganon din ang sinasabi sa verses. The Father is greater than the Son, because the Father is Almighty, the Son is not. But they are equal in the sense that they are both Gods in nature.
That's why in the bible, the term "Almighty" is used only in reference to the Father. In reference to the Son, He is called "Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6), but not "Almighty God," since only the Father can be called "Almighty." Katunayan lang yan na the Father is omnipotent, but the Son is not.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 04, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 04, 2015 at 12:53 PM
Tama rin, pero in essence, ibang topic talaga ang pinag-uusapan sa verses na yan sir.
Ang topic diyan, it answers this question --- Is the Son God or man?
The NIV renders it this way:
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
According to Catholic doctrine, Christ has a dual nature: He is both Fully God and fully man. Pero mali din yon.
The verses explain that the Son is God. Ang sabi, He is God in His very nature. E di Diyos nga.
Pero nagkatawang-tao daw Siya. E di hindi nga tao, kasi nagkatawang-tao lang. Kung ikaw ay tao, hindi ka magkatawang-tao, kasi tao ka na nga talaga. Magkakatawang-tao ka lang kung hindi ka talaga tao.
That's why the verses say He was only made in human likeness, and that he was only "in appearance as a man" when He was born of Mary as a man.
Ang sabi, the son did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. The implication is that the Son is equal to the Father.
Akala ko ba the Father is greater than the Son, therefore they are not equal? Does that verse disprove my view? No.
Ang topic kasi, ang Anak ba ay Diyos o tao. Pag sinabing they are equal, it only means the Son is God, just as the Father is God. They are equal in the sense that they are both Gods.
Parang ganito:
St. Paul is greater than you. Yet you are equal in the sense that you are both humans.
Kung anghel si St. Paul, you and St. Paul are not equal in nature, because man is lower than the angels (Ps. 8:5, quoted in Heb. 2:7). Pero pareho kayong tao ni St. Paul, therefore you and St. Paul are equal in nature. Yet St. Paul is greater that you because he was an apostle who taught the word of God to the Gentiles.
Ganon din ang sinasabi sa verses. The Father is greater than the Son, because the Father is Almighty, the Son is not. But they are equal in the sense that they are both Gods in nature.
Agreed. Ang dating naman sa akin nung verses na yun, it proves your point na the Son maybe less equal to the Father but the powers of Jesus should not be prioritized sa thinking natin because since the three, Father, Son & Holy Spirit are One and they are equal in nature as God. because God so loves us, again that through His Son, also a God, gave importance to our salvation that Jesus humbled Himself by being a man, and died for our sins.
Post by: barrister on Mar 04, 2015 at 05:10 PM
Post by: barrister on Mar 04, 2015 at 05:22 PM
@barrister, i read a lot of your input in this thread. Curiosity got me and wanted to know what is the way of salvation that you believe in?
The way of salvation is very simple. It's already stated in the bible.
Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. If Jesus is the way, all you have to do is walk in His way, and you achieve salvation.
What does walking in His way mean? It means you follow Jesus' commandments.
The first problem is knowing what those commandments are, because you can't obey something that you are not aware of. (Hint --- it's not the 10 commandments.)
Don't believe the slogan that all you have to do is accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, and you're supposedly instantly saved. That's not biblical.
In fact, there's no such phrase as "personal Lord and Savior" in the bible. That catchphrase was made famous by American born-again televangelists, but it's not biblical.
Post by: dpogs on Mar 05, 2015 at 01:35 AM
no one can follow God's/Jesus' commandment...
if kung meron man... then Jesus sacrifice on the cross will be in vain kasi all we need to do is follow the commandment... and if salvation is through good works then all humanity have no chance... tsaka maraming magiging mayabang na tao kasi all they need to do is follow God's commandment.
we cannot achieve salvation... "salvation" is not something to be achieved... as far as i know "achieve" is something you attain by your own effort...
as for me... salvation is a gift, a gift from God... whether you're worthy or not ito ay libreng ibibigay sa iyo nang walang kabayaran...
Eph. 2:8-9 (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
What Jesus did on the cross is enough... Jesus said salvation is complete... hindi na natin kailangang dagdagan na kung ano man including good works.
"good works" is just a manifestation ng isang taong nakatanggap ng tunay na salvation
"good works" is not a requirement for salvation (kasi kapag ka ganoon... lalo lang ipapamukha sa atin ng mga religioius people na sila lang ang may karapatan pumunta ng langint... tayong marmaing kasalanan walang pag-asang makpunta)
What does walking in His way mean? It means you follow Jesus' commandments.
The first problem is knowing what those commandments are, because you can't obey something that you are not aware of. (Hint --- it's not the 10 commandments.)
this statement ay puwedeng abusuhin ng mga false church leaders...
this is the main tools of false religion... they are using this statement to control their members... to manipulate their members...
"ang sabi sa bibiliya... kailangan niyong magbigay ng ikapu para maligtas ang inyong espiritu..."
"ang sabi ng banal na kasulatan... ang sinumang hindi kaanib ng iglesia ay mapupunta sa kumukulong apoy at grava..."
"ang sabi ng Bible... ang sinumang hindi mabautismuhan ay sa impiyerno ang kakasadlakan..."
eto namang member na takot na takot mamatay at mapunta sa impiyerno susundin lahat ng sinasabi ng kanilang ministro... :):):)
that is the main reason why most of us are just being religous ... following traditions dahil sa takot na baka mawala ang kanilang kaligtasan...
Post by: barrister on Mar 05, 2015 at 09:53 AM
...we cannot achieve salvation... "salvation" is not something to be achieved... as far as i know "achieve" is something you attain by your own effort...
as for me... salvation is a gift, a gift from God... whether you're worthy or not ito ay libreng ibibigay sa iyo nang walang kabayaran...
..."good works" is not a requirement for salvation (kasi kapag ka ganoon... lalo lang ipapamukha sa atin ng mga religioius people na sila lang ang may karapatan pumunta ng langint... tayong marmaing kasalanan walang pag-asang makpunta)
Parang napag-usapan na natin ang topic na ito, sir dpogs.
Like I said before, I don't believe in the Sola Fide doctrine of the Protestants.
Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility for us to reconcile our views, since Sola Fide is so central to your beliefs.
Pero ok lang yon sir. The way I see it, puwede nating pag-usapan ang kaibahan ng interpretation natin, at tanggapin na lang natin na may mga topic na hindi na talaga tayo puwedeng magkasundo.
this statement ay puwedeng abusuhin ng mga false church leaders...
this is the main tools of false religion... they are using this statement to control their members... to manipulate their members...
"ang sabi sa bibiliya... kailangan niyong magbigay ng ikapu para maligtas ang inyong espiritu..."
"ang sabi ng banal na kasulatan... ang sinumang hindi kaanib ng iglesia ay mapupunta sa kumukulong apoy at grava..."
"ang sabi ng Bible... ang sinumang hindi mabautismuhan ay sa impiyerno ang kakasadlakan..."
eto namang member na takot na takot mamatay at mapunta sa impiyerno susundin lahat ng sinasabi ng kanilang ministro... :) :) :)
that is the main reason why most of us are just being religous ... following traditions dahil sa takot na baka mawala ang kanilang kaligtasan...
Kahit anong verse at kahit anong statement ay puwedeng abusuhin ng mga bulaaan. Kaya nga may bibliya, para puwedeng ma-confirm ang sitas kung gusto natin.
Depende sa tao yon. Karamihan sumusunod lang sa religious leaders. Hindi na nagsusuri ng bibliya. Basta kung ano ituro ni pastor, tanggap na lang.
Meron namang katulad ko. Bibliya lang ang sinusunod, hindi sumusunod sa religious leader, hindi miyembro ng kahit anong sekta.
Ikaw sir dpogs, meron bang official doctrine ang denomination mo na sa tingin mo ay mali, o lahat ng official doctrines ninyo ay tama sa tingin mo at tanggap mo lahat?
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 05, 2015 at 10:39 AM
Tulad nyo ganyan din ang paniniwala ko, nagkaroon lang tayo ng kaunting pagkakaiba sa interpretasyon.
Dahil magkakaiba tayo isa lang sa atin ang tama o lahat tayo ay mali.
Let me quote dpogs
"What Jesus did on the cross is enough... Jesus said salvation is complete... hindi na natin kailangang dagdagan na kung ano man including good works.
"good works" is just a manifestation ng isang taong nakatanggap ng tunay na salvation"
I'm sure familiar kayo sa parable of the 10 virgins.
What Jesus did on the cross is enough... Jesus said salvation is complete... hindi na natin kailangang dagdagan na kung ano man including good works.
What might be the reason bakit hindi nakapasok ang other five virgins?
Hindi ba enough na namatay si Christ sa cross kaya mayroong hindi nakapasok?
Let me quote barrister
"Meron namang katulad ko. Bibliya lang ang sinusunod, hindi sumusunod sa religious leader, hindi miyembro ng kahit anong sekta."
This is what the early believers did to strengthen themselves.
Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
are you doing the above sir barrister?
Proverbs 12:15
The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice.
John 1:1 - trinity of God
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 05, 2015 at 11:08 AM
1. It should be biblical.
2. It should not clash with other verses of the bible.
3. You yourself should analyze it, search for it, and of course, study the bible.
4.
Pwede niyo bang dagdagan so that other people may have an idea.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 05, 2015 at 11:15 AM
Anyway, may naiisip akong topic.
How will you know that you are saved?
My take, Ikaw lamang personally ang makakaalam niyan. Ang alam ko, those names that are written in the book of life ang mga saved. Pero there are also promises by Jesus re salvation. it's a matter of accepting that Jesus died for our sins, confession of our sins. And there are also times that good works does not come easy especially sa enemies natin. Ako, I sometimes "force" myself to love my enemies just so I can follow Jesus.
Post by: shrek7 on Mar 05, 2015 at 11:51 AM
Actually, na-reconcile ko na sa utak ko yun point ni bro dpogs and bro atty. Barrister. Hindi ko lang ma-put into words. Hehe!+10
Post by: dpogs on Mar 05, 2015 at 12:28 PM
Actually, na-reconcile ko na sa utak ko yun point ni bro dpogs and bro atty. Barrister. Hindi ko lang ma-put into words. Hehe!
Anyway, may naiisip akong topic.
How will you know that you are saved?
My take, Ikaw lamang personally ang makakaalam niyan. Ang alam ko, those names that are written in the book of life ang mga saved. Pero there are also promises by Jesus re salvation. it's a matter of accepting that Jesus died for our sins, confession of our sins. And there are also times that good works does not come easy especially sa enemies natin. Ako, I sometimes "force" myself to love my enemies just so I can follow Jesus.
-----------------------
Philippians 2:12-13 (KJV)
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
- sinasabi na 'work out YOUR' ibig sabihin meron na siyang taglay salvation - "your salvation" - kailangan lang niyang palaguin, i-exercise ang kanyang salvation
- hindi sanbi dito na 'work out FOR' - kasi kung ang ginamit ay "for" aba eh kailangan nga nating paghirapan ang ating kaligtasan :)
-----------------------
James 2:18-20 (KJV)
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
having faith and believing hindi lang ganoon kasimple... hindi lahat ng tumatawag na Diyos ay naliligtas... kahit na ang devil naniniwala at nanginginig pa :)
faith is not a declaration... its an experience... a personal experience between you and Jesus Christ... madaling magsabi na i believe and have faith in Jesus Christ... (note: the devil also believe nanginginig pa).
since it is a personal experience... ikaw lang ang makakapagtestify o makakapagsabi kung ligtas ka nga o hindi... paano naman kami maniniwala na ligtas ka na nga o paano naman namin malalaman na may tunay kang kaligtasan - by your works
sinasabi mo na ligtas ka... then ipakita mo by your works...
sinasabi mo na you have true faith... then show it by your works...
ang tao kasi sanay sa katagang - 'action speaks louder than words'
applicable din dito ang 'work out your salvation'
before us/human... you need to prove your faith through your works
before God... you dont need to prove your faith by your works... Jesus' sacrifice is enough for God to please...
our human nature is sinful we dont have power over sin... but if you are a true son of God... your new nature is righteousness... kaya nga sabi "you need to be born again"... means spiritual birth... you have now power over sin trhough Christ and with the help of Holy Spirit living within you.
so kung meron mang tao na magdeclare na anak siya ng Diyos... tingnan mo lang ugali niya... if he/she is a true son of God... good works will manifest... if not magpapatuloy lang siya sa kanyang kasalanan...
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 05, 2015 at 01:02 PM
In war where you are task to kill or be killed by the enemy - which one is doing the good work, you or your enemy?
there are times that good work is dependent on who will benefit.
Pag marami ba mag be-benefit good work na iyong matatawag?
Paano na ang nasagasaan mo in doing the good work?
Example medyo malayo nga lang.
You invented the automobile but brought also pollution in the environment.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 05, 2015 at 01:17 PM
Eph. 2:8 (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
It is by the grace of God that we are save.
Post by: barrister on Mar 05, 2015 at 03:57 PM
@barrister, @dpogs - natutuwa naman ako at pareho kayong naniniwala na may Dios at pareho kayong naniniwala ng ang Biblia ay salita ng Dios.
Tulad nyo ganyan din ang paniniwala ko, nagkaroon lang tayo ng kaunting pagkakaiba sa interpretasyon.
Dahil magkakaiba tayo isa lang sa atin ang tama o lahat tayo ay mali.
Magandang attitude yan sir. Noong una, pinipilit ko sa iba yung interpretation ko, pero ngayon, I recognize na hindi talaga maiiwasan ang differences in interpretation.
Kadalasan may agreement tayo sa basics, pero may differences lang sa detalye, especially the very difficult verses of the bible.
Let me quote dpogs
"What Jesus did on the cross is enough... Jesus said salvation is complete... hindi na natin kailangang dagdagan na kung ano man including good works.
"good works" is just a manifestation ng isang taong nakatanggap ng tunay na salvation"
Tama si sir dpogs, but but I agree only up to a certain point. Past that point, we have a difference of belief.
The bible says, "Faith without works is dead." Kahit may faith, pero walang works, wala rin daw. How do they reconcile that with their doctrine that good works are not necessary?
Doon lumalabo iyan. Pag saved ka raw, automatic na lumilitaw ang good works. Pag walang good works, it means you were not truly saved in the first place.
Doon nila pinipilit na i-reconcile na hindi kailangan ng good works, pero kailangan ng good works. Kung hindi kailangan ng good works, bakit kailangan ng faith + works? kasi may works nga, pero ang works na yon ay automatic na nangyayari kung tunay na saved ka. Yan yung sinasabi nila na "manifestation" daw ang good works. Pag walang na-manifest na good works, you did not receive true salvation.
Doesn't make sense to me.
Let me quote barrister
"Meron namang katulad ko. Bibliya lang ang sinusunod, hindi sumusunod sa religious leader, hindi miyembro ng kahit anong sekta."
This is what the early believers did to strengthen themselves.
Acts 2:42
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
are you doing the above sir barrister?
Literally, no. But spiritually, yes.
I devote myself to the apostles' teaching and fellowship by studying the bible. Pag binasa ko yung sinulat ni Pablo, may fellowship ako kay Pablo. Hindi fellowship sa isang ministro na mali-mali ang interpretation sa sinulat ni Pablo, kundi fellowship kay Pablo mismo.
Yung breaking bread and prayers, kailangan nila yon to encourage each other during the time of the apostles. Remember, konti lang ang marunong bumasa noong panahong yon. Puro illiterate ang halos lahat ng mga miyembro.
These days, you can have fellowship with the apostles by reading the bible on the internet, including the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, plus accurate translations of the original text.
Hindi ako puwedeng sumali sa isang sekta, kasi palagi akong may nakikitang mali sa doktrina nila. Pero pag may nakita ako na 100% tama ang turo, sasali ako doon.
Proverbs 12:15
The way of fools seems right to them, but the wise listen to advice.
Tama iyan. But it can work both ways.
Puwede mong sabihin na mali yung akin, akala ko lang tama. Puwede ko ring sabihin sa iyo na mali ang sa iyo, akala mo lang tama.
Sino tama sa ating dalawa? Bahala na ang Diyos doon. God knows what is in your heart. If you made a mistake, but it was an honest mistake after honestly believing in good conscience that you were right, God would understand.
Based on these verses, even atheists can be saved, if they honestly follow their conscience:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Rom. 2:12-16)
John 1:1 - trinity of God
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
That verse is not about the Trinity. Dalawa lang ang pinag-uusapan, hindi tatlo. Paanong naging Trinity yon?
That verse teaches us the following about the nature of the Son ---
(a) That the Son existed from the very beginning, even before the creation of angels or the universe;
(b) That the Son was with the Father from the very beginning; and
(c) That the Son and the Father are both Gods.
Post by: barrister on Mar 05, 2015 at 04:06 PM
Topic namin kagabi to correct ang teaching na faith alone save ka na.
Eph. 2:8 (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
It is by the grace of God that we are save.
No, kulang ang verse na yan para maipaliwanag nang buo ang principle.
Dapat sir alamin mo muna ang buong arguments ng dalawang magkakontrang views bago ka makapag decide kung alin ang tama.
I assure you, it took me years to understand it.
Isang example lang ng kontrang verses:
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.
... 20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 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. (James 2:14-17; 20-24)
Post by: barrister on Mar 06, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Actually, na-reconcile ko na sa utak ko yun point ni bro dpogs and bro atty. Barrister. Hindi ko lang ma-put into words. Hehe!
Ang totoo, magkakontra talaga kami ni sir dpogs, and the difference cannot be reconciled.
Pero hindi ko na ipipilit yung akin, kasi naniniwala ako na pinag-aralan din naman nang mabuti ni sir dpogs yung paniniwala niya.
Anyway, may naiisip akong topic.
How will you know that you are saved?
My take, Ikaw lamang personally ang makakaalam niyan. Ang alam ko, those names that are written in the book of life ang mga saved. Pero there are also promises by Jesus re salvation. it's a matter of accepting that Jesus died for our sins, confession of our sins. And there are also times that good works does not come easy especially sa enemies natin. Ako, I sometimes "force" myself to love my enemies just so I can follow Jesus.
Ako naman, ang sagot ko, Diyos lang ang nakakaalam kung ligtas ka. Hindi mo puwedeng sabihin na ligtas ka na, at hindi mo rin puwedeng sabihin sa kapwa mo na hindi siya ligtas.
Ikaw personally, may general idea ka lang kung ligtas ka o hindi, pero hindi ka pa rin sigurado. Paano kung OK ka ngayon, pero hindi mo alam, makakagawa ka pala ng kasalanan na mabigat in the future?
Si St. Paul nga, apostol na, pero nasabi lang niya na maliligtas siya noong malapit na siyang mamatay:
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (2 Tim. 4:6-8)
Pero noong malayo pa ang kamatayan ni Pablo, ano ang sabi niya tungkol sa kanyang sarili? ---
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. (Rom.7:14-23)
Apostol na yan, pero ganyan lang ang sabi niya tungkol sa sarili niya. Kailan niya nasabing ligtas siya? Noong alam na niya na mamamatay na siya, not before.
Alam niya na kailangan ng good works hanggang kamatayan, at kinikilala niya na kahit apostol na siya, hindi pa rin madali ang manatili sa good works.
Ibang-iba sa mga born-again ngayon. Hindi na kailangan ng good works kasi ginawa na lahat ni Kristo. Just accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, instant ligtas na raw. Masyado namang pangahas yon, talo pa si Pablo.
Nag "sinner's prayer" lang, sigurado na raw siyang ligtas siya. Isang minutong proseso lang, ligtas na hanggang paghuhukom. Talaga namang American fastfood style... :P
Mabigat na topic yan pag pinasukan ng doktrina ng predestination at ng doktrina ng OSAS ("Once Saved Always Saved").
Both are false doctrines, na pag pinag-usapan ay siguradong giyera patani ang discussion dito... ;)
Post by: dpogs on Mar 06, 2015 at 11:53 AM
you are right in your point na ang tao ngayon ginagawang madali ang sinasabi nating "sinner's prayer" o ang pagtanggap kay Jesus or ang tinatawag nating 'faith'... pero ang sabi ko nga before... "faith" is not just a declaratin... marami nagsasabi ngayon na save siya... kasi nagpray naman daw at tinggap si Jesus... pero ika nga hindi lahat ng tumatawag na "Diyos ko" ay maliligtas... because faith is an experience re salvation is an experience... it is not just a declaration... same as what Paul experience on the way to damascus na kung saan nabulag siya...
one thing na nato-trouble ako sa salvation + works is the sudden death... all of our life we have good works and then hindi mo napigilan nakagawa ka ng kasalanan tapos bigla kang namatay you're going to hell... you dont have any chance to ask forgiveness.
one thing i like sa salvation is the assurance... whatever happens any moment God assures me that He will take care of me... katulad ng sinabi ni Jesus sa krus sa isang nakapako... ngayon din mismo kasama kita langit (Jesus dont even require that criminal to do good works)...
ang sinasabi naman ni Paul sa Rom 7:14-23 is the war going on in ourself... between human nature - sinful nature and Godly nature... kaya nga sinabi rin niya na we need to drink milk (Word of God) habang bata pa sa pananampalatay and then meat (Word of God) para manatiling malakas and to always overcome our sinful nature... once we got saved human-sinful nature stays and we still in our human nature but we have power over them because of the Holy Spirit liviing within us. kung itutuloy natin sa last verse:
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
"but with the flesh the law of sin... " - Christians or believers are reborn spiritually, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is working in us and at the same time this flesh also working in us... sinasabi lang dito ni Paul ang talagang naeexperience ng isang Christian that there is war raging within us - between flesh and spirit... hindi niya sinabi dito na hindi sya sigurado sa kanyang kaligtasan...
Jesus said "... the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak...", it is every Christians respoinsbility to work out the salvation they have so that they will not always give in sa tawag ng laman...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 06, 2015 at 12:03 PM
Re faith & good works, here's my take.
You need faith (yun totoong faith ha) of course given na yan. But then kung hindi magmanifest through good works, that would mean may problem sa faith mo. And let us be honest, there are times na mahirap din gawin so sometimes you have to "force" yourself to follow it. Would you guys consider "forcing" to be a manifestation knowing na even if you have a relationship with God and of course given na we are still, not perfect individuals?
Post by: barrister on Mar 06, 2015 at 01:58 PM
@ Barrister: you read The Bible very well :) we have verses in the Bible to support our understanding and belief in terms of salvation... and honestly... mahirap talaga i-reconcile ang paniniwala nating dalawa... :)
Salamat sir. I started studying the bible seriously in 1992. Pero hindi rin naman 23 years straight, 23 years na on and off lang.
Sa akin ok lang na magkaroon tayo ng differences sa detalye. Malay ko, ako pala ang mali. Malay mo naman, ikaw pala ang mali... ;)
Pero ang paniniwala ko, kahit mali ang sinuman sa atin, basta in good faith and in good conscience ang error na yon, alam ng Diyos na ang error na yon ay hindi naman sinasadya, kaya maiintindihan ng Diyos yon.
one thing na nato-trouble ako sa salvation + works is the sudden death... all of our life we have good works and then hindi mo napigilan nakagawa ka ng kasalanan tapos bigla kang namatay you're going to hell... you dont have any chance to ask forgiveness.
No need to be troubled. The bible explains that issue fully.
Parang surprise exam sa school yan. Ano purpose ng teacher sa surprise exam? To force yourself to always be prepared. Pag scheduled ang exam, mag-aaral ka lang para sa scheduled date.
Sa bible, ang commandment, always be ready. Examples ng ganyang teaching:
35 “Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36 like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. Truly I tell you, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the middle of the night or toward daybreak. 39 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” (Lk. 12:35-40)
Paano kung bigla kang inabutan ng katapusan mo nang may mabigat kang kasalanan? Puwede talagang mangyari yon. Kaya nga ang utos, you must always be ready.
Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. (1 Thess. 5:1)
Like a thief in the night daw. Parang yung Luke 12:39 above, may thief din. Ang false doctrine na lumitaw diyan, magkakaroon daw ng secret rapture. Darating nang hindi natin alam.
Maling interpretation yon. Yung thief in the night, hindi mo mamamalayan pag tulog ka. Pero pag gising ka, malalaman mo.
26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. (Lk. 17:26-27)
Mapapansin mo, normal ang buhay ng mga tao noong panahon ni Noah. The great flood came, nagulat sila.
Bakit sila nagulat? Kasi hindi nila pinansin si Noah. Nangangaral si propeta Noah noon, sinasabi niya na magsisi, at may darating na malaking baha. Walang nakinig. Pero kung nakinig at naniwala sila, hindi sana sila nagulat.
Pareho lang ng "thief in the night." Pag tulog ka, e magugulat ka nga pag dumating yon. Pero hindi ka magugulat kung gising ka at lagi kang handa.
===================================
Therefore, sa question mo na paano yung inabutan ng kamatayan nang may malaking kasalanan, e ganon talaga ang principle sa bible.
Sinasadya talaga ng Diyos na hindi mo malaman ang oras mo, kasi pag alam mo ang oras mo, magpapakatino ka lang pag malapit na, pero magbubulakbol ka pag malayo pa.
Kaya nga ito ang utos:
Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. (Mt. 25:13)
Why would you need to keep watch, if good works will automatically manifest anyway?
Post by: barrister on Mar 06, 2015 at 02:25 PM
Re faith & good works, here's my take.
You need faith (yun totoong faith ha) of course given na yan. But then kung hindi magmanifest through good works, that would mean may problem sa faith mo. And let us be honest, there are times na mahirap din gawin so sometimes you have to "force" yourself to follow it. Would you guys consider "forcing" to be a manifestation knowing na even if you have a relationship with God and of course given na we are still, not perfect individuals?
Yan yung point ko. Mahirap magpakatino. Paanong naging automatic na manifestation ng previously received salvation ang good works kung kailangang magpapakahirap para magpakabuti? Kung automatic yon, e di wala ka sanang hirap.
Si Pablo nga nahirapan, ikaw pa kaya?
Ano sabi ni Pablo tungkol sa gawain ng Kristiyano, automatic manifestation, o isang mahirap na laban na parang digmaan?
11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph. 6:11-12)
Ang bibigat pala ng mga kalaban natin. Biro mo, kailangan pa nating isuot ang "full armor of God," samantalang wala raw kahirap-hirap na automatic manifestation ang gawain natin.
Ano ang ibig sabihin ng "full armor of God"? Ituloy natin ang mga sitas:
13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph. 6:13-17)
==================================
So, ang gawain ba natin ay isang matinding digmaan para makamit ang salvation, o ito ba ay automatic manifestation lang ng previously acquired salvation?
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 06, 2015 at 02:39 PM
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
It is by the grace of God that we are save.
No, kulang ang verse na yan para maipaliwanag nang buo ang principle.
I believe it is complete and clear, without the grace of God we can not be save.
Even if you have faith, even if you have good works - without the grace of God you can not be save.
John 1:1 - trinity of God
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
Word = Son
Word was with God = Son was with the Father
Word was God = Son was God
God = God
Son = Father
God's trinity can be describe like water it has different state.
Water = H2O
Ice = frozen H2O
Steam = boiling H2O
Same H2O but different state and properties.
If you say that water is bigger than ice or better than ice or superior than ice...depends on the application.
Post by: barrister on Mar 06, 2015 at 02:49 PM
Let's agree to disagree... ;)
Post by: shrek7 on Mar 06, 2015 at 06:05 PM
Post by: docelmo on Mar 06, 2015 at 07:37 PM
this is a very interesting thread!!! I would like to thank sir barrister, dpogs and sir nelson! Though medyo iba pa rin yung belief ko dun sa iba, madami pa rin akong natututunan. Again... thank you!!!Indeed! Hats off to our very own pinoydvd "trinity"......for a very enlightening, thought-provoking, gentlemanly and respectful discussion.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 09, 2015 at 11:50 PM
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one."
@Atty. Bro Barrister:
Doesn't these verses talk about the followers of Jesus, His herd?
Post by: barrister on Mar 10, 2015 at 10:21 AM
But the correct English is "flock of sheep," not "herd of sheep."
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 10, 2015 at 11:27 AM
Yes, that's right.
But the correct English is "flock of sheep," not "herd of sheep."
Ang question na lang is, how can we become Jesus' flock of sheep.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 10, 2015 at 01:08 PM
Magandang balitaktakan ito. Based on the book of Genesis, i have to agree with your example na God is not omnipresent and omniscience. However, naalala ko yun famous answer mo re forgiveness. God is forgiving but it is not absolute. God will only choose who to forgive if He deems it so. And there are examples in the Bible that God forgives, and God does not. Going back to omnipresent and omniscience, can we say na it is also not absolute, meaning God chooses not to be omnipresent or omniscience in certain cases, thereby giving way to man's free will?
Post by: barrister on Mar 10, 2015 at 02:51 PM
@ Atty. Bro. Barrister:
Magandang balitaktakan ito. Based on the book of Genesis, i have to agree with your example na God is not omnipresent and omniscience. However, naalala ko yun famous answer mo re forgiveness. God is forgiving but it is not absolute. God will only choose who to forgive if He deems it so. And there are examples in the Bible that God forgives, and God does not. Going back to omnipresent and omniscience, can we say na it is also not absolute, meaning God chooses not to be omnipresent or omniscience in certain cases, thereby giving way to man's free will?
Ang question na lang is, how can we become Jesus' flock of sheep.
Magandang topics nga ang mga yan.
Naalala ko yung kantang Lift Up Your Hands by Basil Valdez. Lipat tayo sa thread mo bosing:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.210.html (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.210.html)
Post by: dpogs on Mar 10, 2015 at 04:09 PM
Ang question na lang is, how can we become Jesus' flock of sheep.
is it you need to be a sheep once first before you can live like a sheep... or to continue live (do) like a sheep to be a sheep someday :)
Post by: JT on Mar 31, 2015 at 08:44 AM
Ang question na lang is, how can we become Jesus' flock of sheep.
The moment you receive Jesus as your Lord, He becomes your shepherd. That already makes you a sheep in His flock.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 31, 2015 at 10:44 AM
Post by: barrister on Mar 31, 2015 at 03:39 PM
Of course God can hear our prayers without being omnipresent.
You're assuming that God can't hear us from that far away, so He has to be literally present on earth just to hear a prayer?
God is in heaven, and God can hear our prayers from heaven.
Thus, Deut. 26: 15 says:
15 Look down from heaven, your holy dwelling place, and bless your people Israel and the land you have given us as you promised on oath to our ancestors, a land flowing with milk and honey.”
Where is God? In heaven. The Israelites were praying to God to look down from heaven, which is His dwelling place.
If God were everywhere, He wouldn't even have a specific dwelling place, because He would be dwelling everywhere.
That's why Jesus said:
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Matt. 6: 9)
Where is the Father? In heaven, of course. Otherwise, Jesus would have said, "Our Father which art everywhere."
Post by: dpogs on Mar 31, 2015 at 11:34 PM
Jeremiah 23:24 (KJV)
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
Hebrews 4:13 (KJV)
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Psalm 139:7-10 (KVJ)
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
John 14:16 (KJV)
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you..
John 14:26 (KJV)
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Post by: barrister on Apr 01, 2015 at 12:37 AM
Some Bible verses that shows God is omnipresent
I don't think so.
=======================================
Jeremiah 23:24 (KJV)
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
That's sight.
Hebrews 4:13 (KJV)
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
That's sight again.
John 14:16 (KJV)
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you..
John 14:26 (KJV)
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The Holy Ghost will be sent.
Why did the Holy Ghost have to be sent? Because it's not omnipresent.
If it's everywhere, then it's already there. Why send it if it's already there?
Psalm 139:7-10 (KVJ)
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
At first glance they seem to be the strongest verses in favor of the omnipresence doctrine. But they seem to show omnipresence only because they are misinterpreted.
I am aware of those verses. In fact, I had already posted Psalm 139: 7-8 before, in my discussion with sir Nelson. I challenged him to reconcile, but he did not make an attempt to do so ---
On the issue of omnipresence, medyo nagulat ako at agree ka na God is not omnipresent, since as far as I know, the majority of Christian denominations believe that God is omnipresent.
Pahihirapan kita nang konti, sir ;) :
Kung hindi omnipresent ang Diyos, how would you reconcile that with these verses ---
7Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. (Ps. 139: 7 & 8 )
If I were to read the Psalms verses, it does clearly state that God is everywhere.
No, it does not. ;)
I cited it because it's the verse commonly cited by those who believe God is omnipresent. But I disagree with their interpretation.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 01, 2015 at 02:29 AM
The Holy Spirit speaks to each person regarding their sins... Holy Spirit is responsble for souls regeneration (a man cannot enter the Kingdom unless he/she is born of Spirit - born again)... after you were born again the Spirit will now indwell within you forever - ito ang ibig sabihin ni Jesus na He will send the Comforter to be within you - indwell... but in reality before we got saved the Holy Spirit is already there guiding us on how to be save...
God the Father is in the throne and God the Holy Spirit dwell within me...
God is in the throne and at the same time God dwells within me...
God the Father is in the throne right now and the Holy Spirit is present with me right now...
God is in the throne right now and at the same time God is present with me right now...
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 01, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Post by: barrister on Apr 01, 2015 at 01:43 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11081227_485694378245279_7504908602758751973_n.jpg?oh=24e5b0443c453ff35936c364181b5695&oe=55ACC226&__gda__=1433462703_85d2b9bf6c792b980306cebb2ebf7f64)
Isn't it amazing how the internet, instead of making us smarter, actually makes us dumber? :D
This Jesus-Horus connection theory nonsense is not new.
Probably the earliest published work about it was contained in book The Natural Genesis, first published in 1883, by Gerald Massey, an English poet who was also a spritualist and Ancient Egypt enthusiast. His theories influenced later writers such as Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Tom Harpur, Yosef Ben-Jochannan, and Dorothy M. Murdock (pen name Acharya S.).
==================================
There is no basis to conclude that Horus was born of a virgin.
Horus’ mother, Isis, was married to Osiris.
After Osiris is murdered and hacked into 14 pieces by his brother, his widow Isis puts him back together again and brings him back to life for a short period, for the purpose of conceiving a son. But Osiris' penis is missing, because it was previously thrown into the river Nile and eaten by catfish. So, Iris makes a substitute penis for Osiris, attaches it to his body, performs intercourse, conceives and gives birth to Horus.
Virgin birth ba yon? That's what we get from relying on internet memes. :D
===================================
There is no basis for saying that Jesus was born on Dec. 25. That date was an invention of pagan origin, which was unfortunately adopted by various Christian sects. The date of Jesus' birth is unknown. In fact, bible scholars agree that Jesus was definitely not born in the month of December.
Horus was not born on Dec. 25 either. Horus was born on the first of the Epagomenal days in the Ancient Egyptian calendar. This coincides with July 14 in our modern calendar, which means Horus was not even born in December.
===================================
There is no basis for saying that a star led 3 wise men to the newborn Horus.
This is an invention that started in The Origins of Christianity, a book by Dorothy M. Murdock (pen name Acharya S.). She claims that there were three stars that led the wise men named the kings in Orion. Her claim was based on unfounded claims by Gerald Massey, whose only source material was his interpretation of some "panels" supposedly at Luxor, Egypt, which nobody else seems to know about.
===================================
There is no basis for saying that Horus was taken to Egypt to flee the wrath of Typhon.
Horus was not taken to Egypt; he was born in Egypt. He didn’t have to "flee the wrath of Typhon," since Typhon never tried to kill him. It was his uncle, Set, who was trying to murder him.
===================================
There is no basis for saying that Horus taught in the temple as a child.
The majority of information in Egyptian text about Horus is about his adulthood. There is an account of his birth, but there is nothing about the child Horus supposedly teaching in the temple.
That story is an invention that cannot be backed up by any source material.
===================================
There is nothing in the Horus stories about any supposed baptism of Horus. There is simply no basis for this claim.
It's Acharya S. who claims that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer. But there is no mention of this person in any of the Horus accounts. Again, a modern invention without any basis whatsoever.
Jesus had 12 disciples. Horus did not. According to the Horus accounts, Horus' followers were 4 demi-gods.
Massey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers, and says they are the 12 disciples of Horus. But Horus is not even present in this scene, so the connection is baseless and forced.
There is no source material that can be the basis for the existence of somebody named "El-Azur-Us." The name is a nice 20th century invention that sounds similar to "Lazarus," but an invention nonetheless.
===================================
Kayo na lang ang magtuloy... sayang lang kuryente ko dito... :D
Post by: JT on Apr 01, 2015 at 03:39 PM
Some Bible verses that shows God is omnipresent
Psalm 139:7-10 (KVJ)
7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
Indeed the bible does not directly says God the Father is Omnipresent. The psalms above refers to His spirit which we may refer to the Holy Spirit. He is everywhere and dwells to every believer. In God's Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent attributes, I believe its the nature of the entire Trinity.
God the Father is the Omnipotent, His title The Almighty. The Lord Jesus is the Omniscient, remember He is "The Truth", and the Holy Spirit is the Omnipresent nature of God. The three being One God.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Apr 06, 2015 at 01:56 PM
Have you reasearch on Aleph Tav?
One good reading can be found here www.lasttrumpet.org/aleph_tav.htm
Hats off on you research on Horus
Post by: barrister on Apr 06, 2015 at 05:16 PM
@barrister
Have you reasearch on Aleph Tav?
One good reading can be found here www.lasttrumpet.org/aleph_tav.htm (http://www.lasttrumpet.org/aleph_tav.htm)
This Aleph Tav is new to me, so I had to google it. Unfortunately, it turns out that your linked article is utter nonsense.
Aleph Tav is part of ancient Hebrew grammar, untranslatable to English because it has no English equivalent.
Aleph Tav is transliterated as "et" or "eth," with Strong's Hebrew Number 853. See the Hebrew interlinear of Gen. 1:1 --- http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm) Literal translation -- ... the earth and the heavens __ God created...
The subject is "God," the transitive verb is "created," the direct objects are "the earth and the heavens."
The blank corresponds to the Hebrew "et." This is an accusative in Hebrew grammar, but there is no equivalent in English grammar. "Et" connects the transitive verb to the direct object, indicating that God was the one who created the earth and the heavens, and it was not the heavens and the earth that created God.
Notice in the Hebrew interlinear, the blank corresponds to Strong's # 853 above, then below as "et" in the English alphabet, and furthest below as "Acc" in Hebrew grammar.
http://biblehub.com/hebrewparse.htm (http://biblehub.com/hebrewparse.htm)
Acc means "accusative," which means the form of a noun used to mark the direct object of a transitive verb.
In English, we have accusative cases for pronouns, but none for nouns.
Thus, using pronouns, we say "He called her," to indicate that "he" was the one who called. Reversing the order, we say "She was called by him," not "Her was called by he."
While there is a difference when pronouns are used, there is no difference when nouns are used. Thus, we say "Jose called Maria." Reversing the order, we say, "Maria was called by Jose." No difference in the nouns used.
But in other languages such as Latin and Hebrew, they have accusative cases even for nouns. That's why the accusative in ancient Hebrew nouns cannot be translated into English.
Beware of claims of "hidden messages" in the bible such as the so-called "Bible Code," etc., or you risk wasting your time in esoteric baloney.
The bible is not hard to understand. On the contrary, it's so easy to understand, that it was revealed to "little children":
25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. (Mt. 11:25-26)
===================================
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. (Mt. 13:14)
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Apr 15, 2015 at 06:42 PM
I'm surprised the Philippines wasn't over 90%. Progress, I suppose.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on May 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM
(https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11255549_826999504021464_3171898042472101057_n.jpg?oh=1d7199deb4709c6110398442a0fa2955&oe=560B5F06)
Post by: rascal101 on May 15, 2015 at 01:50 PM
Post by: luis on May 15, 2015 at 02:21 PM
Old Testament: Justice and Punishment
New Testament: Love and Forgiveness
why there is a change in messaging, I do not know.
What do I believe and what is my anchor: I believe in the Gospel, Love, Forgiveness, Faith, Hope, Humility, extending extra hand, extending extra understanding, extending extra effort. I shy a away from getting angry, I am trying very hard not to be judgmental and vindictive. Shying away also from being negative.
just sharing he he he... ;D
Post by: barrister on May 17, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Agree ba kayo dito?
No, I don't agree with it.
The reason is very simple.
In the time of Abraham, God talked to man directly. These days, God does not talk to man directly anymore.
If God commanded you to murder a child, sira lang ang ulo mo. Hindi Diyos ang narinig mo. Kaya magpatingin ka na habang maaga... :D
=======================================
I saw Alex Gonzaga in The Buzz. I think she's insane since she just publicly claims that when she prays God actually talks back to her and she is able to quote exactly what He's saying to her.
Insane? Not necessarily.
Why assume she's actually hearing anything? It never occurred to you that she's lying?
Personally, I think she's lying. Hindi naman bago yon. Maraming ganon, gusto lang palabasin na banal sila... :D
=======================================
Agree ba kayo dito?
(https://scontent-hkg3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11255549_826999504021464_3171898042472101057_n.jpg?oh=1d7199deb4709c6110398442a0fa2955&oe=560B5F06)
That internet meme, allegedly from Ray Comfort, is probably a fake.
This one is probably the real facebook post:
(https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-xat1/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/1452576_670944186259391_842709662_n.png?oh=6b76bf805ed279d88f70e4ccb0753b47&oe=55C40FEF&__gda__=1443268713_4ff1b97d14dbe6690da9be1380ac4f01) (https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort)
Ray Comfort (https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort?fref=nf)
July 16, 2013 ·
Comment: “God told Abraham to sacrifice his son to prove his love."
Ray Answers: God told Abraham to "offer" Isaac, and when he was about to kill him, God stopped him (see Genesis 22). This is a Bible "type"-- of God sending His “only-begotten Son” to suffer for the sin of the world. Any dirt we try and throw at God will always come back down on us, because He is without sin.
Download "Evolution Vs God" Here -> http://bit.ly/188W7Qj (http://bit.ly/188W7Qj)
https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort/posts/609564042397406 (https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort/posts/609564042397406)
=======================================
The Abrahamic dilemma (http://www.jeremystyron.com/2014/03/the-abrahamic-dilemma/)
Written by Jeremy
March 6th, 2014 at 10:08 pm
Twitter was all a-bluster this week with a hoax — what a surprise? — about Ray Comfort (https://twitter.com/FilSalustri/status/440787202235453440/photo/1) and the story of Abraham sacrificing his son for God. A person named Martin Roberts supposedly asked Comfort whether he would be willing, like Abraham in the Bible, to kill his son to show his devotion.
Here is Comfort’s fictitious reply:
Of course I would do as The Lord commanded, it isn’t murder if it’s in God’s name, nothing he commands could ever possibly be considered evil as morality comes from God. Even cancer is a gift from God.
I would kill a thousand children if God asked me to, that’s because I have faith. As an Atheist you can’t possibly know the joy of faith. If The Lord commanded me to rape and kill my own children tonight it would be done by morning, you can’t shake my faith!
Comfort refuted this on his Facebook page:
I noticed an excessive amount of anger towards me today from indignant atheists, who were accusing me of saying “If the Lord commanded me to kill my own children tonight, it would be done by morning.” I never said such a horrible thing, nor would I. Please join me in prayer for the person who wrote this fake post.
http://www.jeremystyron.com/2014/03/the-abrahamic-dilemma/ (http://www.jeremystyron.com/2014/03/the-abrahamic-dilemma/)
=======================================
Why does the internet, instead of making us smarter, actually make us dumber than we already are? :D
Post by: dpogs on May 18, 2015 at 02:46 AM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 22, 2015 at 01:04 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 22, 2015 at 01:33 PM
(http://s25.postimg.org/63n8swdrz/FB_IMG_1437541258367.jpg)
There's the internet meme again.
The bible says it's a sin to be left-handed? That's new to me.
If that sin is mentioned 25 times in the bible, then it would surely be easy to cite just one instance.
Can you cite one instance where the bible says being left-handed is a sin?
Post by: sirhc on Jul 22, 2015 at 01:59 PM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 22, 2015 at 11:40 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 23, 2015 at 12:43 PM
Actually, I posted it here to check if anyone can confirm if it's true.
If it's true that Ferroni said it?
No, I don't think so. He wrote an article with a similar message, but it's doubtful that an actual word-for-word quote from him exists.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-ferroni/i-was-born-a-sinner_b_2124203.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-ferroni/i-was-born-a-sinner_b_2124203.html)
If it's true that the bible mentions 25 times that being left-handed is a sin?
No, as far as I know. That's why I was asking for a bible verse, just in case I was wrong.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 05, 2015 at 11:58 PM
Yung sinasabi mong trivia na bilog ang mundo ayon sa Bible ang ibig kong sabihin.
Yes. It is in the Bible.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 06:25 AM
Yes. It is in the Bible.
Go post and explain to us.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:20 AM
Go post and explain to us.
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" KVJ Isa.40:22
circle = round
Would you believe that during old testament they know already that the earth is round. Trivia lang :-)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:52 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 08:33 AM
Circle of the earth daw. Hindi naman sinabing circle yung earth a. Kindly explain naman ng maayos :)
nope.. it didn't... but during the old testament they know that the earth is round. :) if they didnt know that the earth is round paano nagkaroon ng idea at naisulat ang "circle of the earth"
take note: my trivia is "during the old testament they know that the earth is round" :):):) di ko sinabi na "the Bible says the earht is round"
it is my way of replying when I qoute "I am the Alpha and the Omega" and you assumed agad na i am referring to "timelessness" :):):)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 08:44 AM
Iba yung ibig kong sabihin sa timelessness. When you said alpha and omega, beginning and end di ba? Kumbaga, time-based. So i asked, yung bang sumulat nyan, meron konsepto ng timelessness?
If Moses or Jesus lived today, sa tingin mo, ano ang nakalagay sa Bible?
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 08:51 AM
nope.. it didn't... but during the old testament they know that the earth is round. :) if they didnt know that the earth is round paano nagkaroon ng idea at naisulat ang "circle of the earth"
"Circle of the earth" means "horizon of the earth." It does not mean "sphere of the earth."
This was how the ancient Israelites viewed the world:
1. The earth is a flat, circular disk;
2. The earth is anchored in the waters by pillars;
3. Above the earth is a dome-shaped firmament.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 08:52 AM
Ah, so hindi pala ayon sa Bible na the Earth is round. Sinabi lang dun na during that time, alam ng tao na bilog ang mundo. Ang labo naman ;D
Iba yung ibig kong sabihin sa timelessness. When you said alpha and omega, beginning and end di ba? Kumbaga, time-based. So i asked, yung bang sumulat nyan, meron konsepto ng timelessness?
If Moses or Jesus lived today, sa tingin mo, ano ang nakalagay sa Bible?
same... "I am Alpha and Omega" since i believe that the Word of God never change. :)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 08:57 AM
Post by: jerix on Aug 06, 2015 at 08:58 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 10:24 AM
This should be very different from what astronomy tells us.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:43 PM
Kung alpha and omega si Jesus, san na papasok si God Almighty?
I believe that the God the Holy Spirit, God The Son Jesus, God The Father is ONE, the God Almighty.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:44 PM
I believe that the God the Holy Spirit, God The Son Jesus, God The Father is ONE, the God Almighty.
Anong ibig sabihhin mo ng ONE?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:50 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:53 PM
There is only One God (Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and God the Father)
yan ba yung triune GOD concept?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:25 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:30 PM
^Fair enough. How do you explain Jesus praying to himself?
Fair enough, How do you explain you talking to yourself?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:31 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:32 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:34 PM
I believe that me and my wife is one. But i talk to my wife everytime. :-)
Okay, gets ko na. Thanks for clearing that up.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:35 PM
Hindi ko naman kinakausap sarili ko. Where did you get that idea? ;D
and where do you get this idea:
How do you explain Jesus praying to himself?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:37 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:43 PM
Paki-back read na lang ho :)
paki sagot ng diretsa baka mali yung ma back read ko.. salamat..
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 06, 2015 at 01:56 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 02:00 PM
^Click on this link:
wala naman sinasabe dun na Jesus talking to Him self..
Post by: jerix on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:04 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:09 PM
if there is God the spirit who is a spirit, what is the nature of that God the father? :-\
inde naman namimilosopo, pero God nature.
Human has human nature.
kung nature at nature to set an example:
Ang Diyos ay likas na mapagmahal.. and on and on...
Post by: jerix on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:12 PM
Post by: jerix on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:23 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 03:37 PM
Maybe this should be answered in the context of the TRINITY doctrine
Ang Ama ay Diyos, ang Anak ay Diyos at ang Banal na Espiritu ay Dios. Sila ay Diyos (inde mga dios).
Post by: jerix on Aug 06, 2015 at 04:03 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 04:11 PM
Maybe you will agree with me that God the Son is Flesh, God the Spirit is spirit but how about God the Father? Is he in between being flesh and a spirit? or that God the father is only an idea?
Oneness theology ba ito?
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 06, 2015 at 06:37 PM
Please help me, what is that GOD nature? Is it similar to SPIRIT nature?
Juan 4:24
"Ang Diyos ay Espiritu at ang mga sumasamba sa kanya ay dapat siyang sambahin sa espiritu at sa katotohanan.”
kaya di kailangan ng mga imahen dahil walang imahen ang espiritu.
Maging ang imahen ni Jesus na ginagamit ngayon ay hindi siyang tunay na mukha ni Jesus
Post by: jerix on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:14 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:51 PM
So yung God the father na tinatawag at god the holy spirit pala ay kapwa ispirito. Kung silang tatlo ay existing na sa una palang sino ang god the son bago isinilang si Kristo?
God the Son pa rin.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:53 AM
Post by: jerix on Aug 07, 2015 at 08:11 AM
God the Son pa rin.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Paano naman nangyari yun? Di ba nag conceive muna si Virgin Mary na parang magic kasi wala namang nakapartner, at later pinanganak siya as flesh. So before that wala munang God the son na in the flesh or else di siya magkakasya sa sinapupunan ni Mary.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 10:28 AM
Di ko rin alam paano nangyari iyon :-( it is how the Holy Spirit works, full of wonder, kaya nga God is wonderful. There ia nothing impossible to God.
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 10:55 AM
Catholics believe Jesus, while on earth, was fully God and fully human.
The INC believes Jesus was human only, not God.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is not God, not man, but the Archangel Michael who took human form.
Oneness Pentecostals believe God is one person only; the Son existed only when he was born on earth; before He became flesh, He was the Father.
Depende sa intindi mo sa bible.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Concieved by the God the Spirit, isinilang ng isang birhen. Ipinanganak na tao at Diyos si Jesus. Not half/half, ipinanganal na tao at Diyos.
Di ko rin alam paano nangyari iyon :-( it is how the Holy Spirit works, full of wonder, kaya nga God is wonderful. There ia nothing impossible to God.
Kung tao at Diyos, meron na ba syang isip nung baby pa sya?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Kung tao at Diyos, meron na ba syang isip nung baby pa sya?
ang baby may isip din, kung walang isip inde niya mapapagalaw yung katawan niya.. :)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:20 AM
Kung tao at Diyos, meron na ba syang isip nung baby pa sya?
Yup. I want to believe that. Dito mo makikita pagiging Diyos niya at pagiging tao.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:30 AM
Yup. I want to believe that. Dito mo makikita pagiging Diyos niya at pagiging tao.
Creepy. Pano na kung gusto nyang dumede?
Post by: sirhc on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Creepy. Pano na kung gusto nyang dumede?
Whats the issue with that? Its just nature's avenue for nourishing your child. Why make a fuss about this?
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:39 AM
Creepy. Pano na kung gusto nyang dumede?
Post by: sirhc on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Thanks.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Whats the issue with that? Its just nature's avenue for nourishing your child. Why make a fuss about this?
Hahahaha! Really? You need to ask that? ;D
Oo naman. Imagine a baby, who baby talks, who's fragile, tapos merong isip? Kapag ba meron syang napulot na bagay, sinusubo nya ri ba like other babies? Tahimik lang ba sya palagi?
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Oo naman. Imagine a baby, who baby talks, who's fragile, tapos merong isip? Kapag ba meron syang napulot na bagay, sinusubo nya ri ba like other babies? Tahimik lang ba sya palagi?
And the relevance nung pagdede in the overall discussion would be?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:05 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Hindi kasi ako naniniwala sa ganoong paniniwala e. So, explain to me how does a god in baby form behave.
ano ba yung pinaniniwalaan mo para maintindihan ng nakababasa para ma-itumpak yung sagot sa baby form behave...
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 07, 2015 at 01:29 PM
Paano naman nangyari yun? Di ba nag conceive muna si Virgin Mary na parang magic kasi wala namang nakapartner, at later pinanganak siya as flesh. So before that wala munang God the son na in the flesh or else di siya magkakasya sa sinapupunan ni Mary.
sa INC Logos (word) si Jesus nang una, wala pang kasiyangaan kundi plano ng Diyos. Natupad ang plano nang ipanganak ni Maria (dapat ding suriin ang pagkabirhen dahil sa gospels, isang lang ang gumamit ng birhen (si mateo sa pagkakatanda ko at si mark at Lukas ay hindi) at namatay at nabuhay.
Almah (young woman) at Betulah (virgin) sa Hebrew. Almah ang karaniwang ginagamit ay hindi Betulah.
Kung si Hesus aat ang Ama ay iisa sa pagkaDiyos, suriin mo ito:
nagkasala ang tao sa Diyos
Kinailangang magkatawang tao ng Diyos at maging Anak Niya ang kanyang sarili at patayin nya ang Kanyang Anak na Siya rin yun upang tubusin ang tao mula sa kanya ring sarili
ang mga yan ay para mapatawad Niya ang mga tao sa kanilang mga kasalanan, sa Kanya rin.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 01:44 PM
ano ba yung pinaniniwalaan mo para maintindihan ng nakababasa para ma-itumpak yung sagot sa baby form behave...
Ako nga yung nagtatanong e, para maintindihan ko. Wala ka bang sagot?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:01 PM
Ako nga yung nagtatanong e, para maintindihan ko. Wala ka bang sagot?
eto yung sinabe mo:
Hindi kasi ako naniniwala sa ganoong paniniwala
need lang maintindihan para masagot ng ayos.
to answer a bit, Jesus needed to undergo the normal human process from infanthood to adulthood, just like we are (setting aside muna yung God nature niya). Read Philipians 2...
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:10 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:16 PM
So, naka-off muna yung God mode? San nasusulat ito? I checked Philipians 2, parang wala naman.
para malinaw hinubad niya ito mas akma yata sa setting aise na sinabe ko.
nasa verse 7
6Na siya, bagama't nasa anyong Dios, ay hindi niya inaring isang bagay na nararapat panangnan ang pagkapantay niya sa Dios, 7Kundi bagkus hinubad niya ito, at naganyong alipin, na nakitulad sa mga tao: 8At palibhasa'y nasumpungan sa anyong tao, siya'y nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili, na nagmasunurin hanggang sa kamatayan, oo, sa kamatayan sa krus.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:33 PM
Iba naman kasi yung tanong ko e.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:37 PM
I get that part. It's about humility.
Iba naman kasi yung tanong ko e.
siguro mas magandang tanong "how does Jesus behave as a baby?"
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:38 PM
siguro mas magandang tanong "how does Jesus behave as a baby?"
Okay, sige. How does Jesus behave as a baby?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:43 PM
Okay, sige. How does Jesus behave as a baby?
like any other baby ...
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:55 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:27 PM
The Bible have no record of Jesus during His childhood and adolescent period except that of when He's earthly mother mary found Him in the temple talking to men. Mga ten year old boy siya.
Hindi nya agad pinakita ang power, wisdom, moracles niya habang bata pa siya since its not yet the time.
Kung noong baby siya at nagsalita agad siya ng turo sa Bibliya then i believe the great plan of salvation cannot be finished. Kaya nga sabi sa Bible He made Himself a lower than angel hinubad ang pagkadiyos for our salvation.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:28 PM
So, wala pa ngang isip?
ang baby may isip, pang baby
ang adult may isip pang adult
if brain and mind of an infant will not function, cemetery is the end result.
baby cries because he/she knows someone will listen to him/her.
baby responds to his/her parent kasi may isip siya...
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:35 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:41 PM
Yung persisting na tanong about the baby stuff ay more on Functionality.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:52 PM
Jesus have all the right to act and think not like a baby because He is God... But He did not instead he choose to live a normal life of a baby ... For me that is one way of saying following God's will.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 05:48 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:05 PM
Kahit naman ngayon may mga bata na super advance magisip malamang lamang sila pa nagtuturo sa kanilang mga magulang. Having a child with such great kbowedge and power dalawa lang puwede gawin ng magulang, to exploit the child or to let them live a normal life. I believe Mary and Joseph choose to let Jesus live a normal as much as possible and of course i believe some sort of security na rin from Herod
Post by: majoe on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:08 PM
Did Mary and Joseph know about that? Did they teach him things? Did Jesus pretended he's learning when all the while he already knew?
okay sa mga tanong ah, hehe.
pag walang nakasulat sa bible, speculation o kaya base na lang sa common sense makukuha mong sagot :)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:18 PM
okay sa mga tanong ah, hehe.
pag walang nakasulat sa bible, speculation o kaya base na lang sa common sense makukuha mong sagot :)
I'm hoping for that. Answers na galing sa common sense. So far, I can't get any sense ;D at least for this baby topic.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:21 PM
okay sa mga tanong ah, hehe.
pag walang nakasulat sa bible, speculation o kaya base na lang sa common sense makukuha mong sagot :)
Yup. Nagkaroom kaya ng crush si Jesus? Nagkaroon kaya ng erection si Jesus? May isip kaya si Jesus habang nasa womb ni Mary?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:23 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:31 PM
okay sa mga tanong ah, hehe.
pag walang nakasulat sa bible, speculation o kaya base na lang sa common sense makukuha mong sagot :)
Korek!
Pero madali lang ang sagot diyan.
Walang direktang sinasabi sa bible, pero may clues.
Bakit walang sinasabi sa bible? Siyempre naman. Bakit babanggitin pa, e wala namang kakuwenta-kuwentang issue yon, walang kinalaman sa salvation... :D
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:50 PM
Korek!
Pero madali lang ang sagot diyan.
Walang direktang sinasabi sa bible, pero may clues.
Bakit walang sinasabi sa bible? Siyempre naman. Bakit babanggitin pa, e wala namang kakuwenta-kuwentang issue yon, walang kinalaman sa salvation... :D
panong nasingit ang salavtion, paano ba maligtas ang tao?
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:05 PM
Ang sagot, kumpleto ang biblya para sa ating kaalaman ukol sa kailgtasan. Pero hindi kumpleto ang bibliya sa lahat ng bagay.
Ilan ang Diyos, isa lang o marami? May sagot ang bibliya diyan, kasi may kinalaman sa kaligtasan.
Ano ang paboritong meryenda ni Hesus? Walang sagot ang bibliya, kasi walang kinalaman sa kaligtasan yon.
Ano mas magaling, Mac o PC? Walang sagot ang biblya... :D
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:08 PM
Ang relevance ng salvation ay sa ganitong tanong--- Kumpleto ba ang bibliya?
Ang sagot, kumpleto ang biblya para sa ating kaalaman ukol sa kailgtasan. Pero hindi kumpleto ang bibliya sa lahat ng bagay.
Ilan ang Diyos, isa lang o marami? May sagot ang bibliya diyan, kasi may kinalaman sa kaligtasan.
Ano ang paboritong meryenda ni Hesus? Walang sagot ang bibliya, kasi walang kinalaman sa kaligtasan yon.
Ano mas magaling, Mac o PC? Walang sagot ang biblya... :D
eh, pano ba maligtas yung tao?
Post by: markcrenz on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:19 PM
Ano ang paboritong meryenda ni Hesus? Walang sagot ang bibliya, kasi walang kinalaman sa kaligtasan yon.Alam ni Brod Pete sagot dyan. Basa... ;D
Ano mas magaling, Mac o PC? Walang sagot ang biblya... :D
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:21 PM
Alien!
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:25 PM
Good questions. What do you think? I'm serious.
using our common sense... we cant answer that :)... our common sense will always tell us that Jesus as human experience erection, not thinkig while still a baby or at womb.. and having girl crush...
but if we consider Jesus being a God at the same time... well that is outside my common sense and i might say He knoweth all things, can think while still in the womb, no erection maybe and no girl crush... might be...
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 07, 2015 at 09:01 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 08, 2015 at 12:29 AM
I can't argue with what you believe in. I just hope you believe with reason and not just take what is given you.
May mga tao started with what was given. Some explore, some don't. Yun iba iniwan nila and abandoned what was given to them. Yun iba decided to pursue their faith. Yun iba did not have faith to begin with but studied the bible and found out a lot of things that gave them faith. Madaming nangyari and pwedeng mangyari, Walang general rule if it will be from the point of view of those who do not believe.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 08, 2015 at 01:13 AM
I can't argue with what you believe in. I just hope you believe with reason and not just take what is given you.
if i believe with reason... atheist na sana ulit ako :):):)
I believe in the Bible, I believe in the Word of God... if there is something new I seek first the Scripture (the Bible) if it is Biblical or not...
Post by: oweidah on Aug 08, 2015 at 04:18 AM
pag translated, may posibilidad na mahaluan ng interpretasyon
ilang versions ba meron ang Holy Bible?
di ko alam ngayon pero nung nasa saudi ako, pinagmamslaki nila na ang Holy Quran, arabic lang
Post by: barrister on Aug 08, 2015 at 09:11 AM
anong lenguahe ba sinulat ang biblia?
pag translated, may posibilidad na mahaluan ng interpretasyon
Old Testament- Hebrew. New Testament- Greek.
Wala namang problema kahit maraming translation. Available ang original language kahit sa internet, basahin mo lang sa original language.
di ko alam ngayon pero nung nasa saudi ako, pinagmamslaki nila na ang Holy Quran, arabic lang
Hindi ka pa pinapanganak sir, may translation na ang Koran.
Year 1143 pa lang, may Latin version na. 16th to 18th century- French, Italian, German, English, Russian.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_translations_of_the_Quran (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_translations_of_the_Quran)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 08, 2015 at 10:21 AM
if i believe with reason... atheist na sana ulit ako :):):)
I believe in the Bible, I believe in the Word of God... if there is something new I seek first the Scripture (the Bible) if it is Biblical or not...
Matanong lang, you can choose not to answer kung sobrang personal. Pano ka naging atheist and why did you come back?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 08, 2015 at 11:54 AM
Matanong lang, you can choose not to answer kung sobrang personal. Pano ka naging atheist and why did you come back?
you may back read i think nasa atheist thread ata un :):):)
Post by: barrister on Aug 08, 2015 at 05:11 PM
Ako nga hindi ko na matandaan, e ang dalas ko sa thread na yon :( .
Baka puwede mong ulitin sir para hindi na kami maghanap...
Post by: dpogs on Aug 08, 2015 at 08:37 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 08, 2015 at 10:16 PM
Post by: panzimus on Aug 09, 2015 at 03:03 AM
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 09, 2015 at 09:44 AM
I'm hoping for that. Answers na galing sa common sense. So far, I can't get any sense ;D at least for this baby topic.with due respect napakaraming pangyayari sa Bible na mahirap ipaliwanag pero namgyari like ung pagdadalang tao ni Mary kay Jesus, feeding of thousands, bringing Lazarus back from the dead, etc. sabi nga it's either you have faith or not. if you don't believe in God or in the Bible wag mo na pilitin intindihin yung mga pangyayari o sinasabi sa bible
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 09, 2015 at 05:22 PM
Ang itinatanong ko is how Jesus was as a child. Some say he's a man, some say he's a God. Kaya ako nagtatanong para malaman reasons behind their beliefs.
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 09, 2015 at 05:52 PM
Wala naman akong problema dun sa mga milagro na sinabi mo e. Kung me powers ka, pwedeng magawa lahat yun.
Ang itinatanong ko is how Jesus was as a child. Some say he's a man, some say he's a God. Kaya ako nagtatanong para malaman reasons behind their beliefs.
As a semi-practicing Catholic, ano ba yun pinaniniwalaan or belief mo about how Jesus was as a child?
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 09, 2015 at 09:10 PM
As a semi-practicing Catholic, ano ba yun pinaniniwalaan or belief mo about how Jesus was as a child?the question is if he believes in the bible.this is a real question and not sarcastic.baka naman kasi di sya naniniwala na may diyos at sa bibliya.useless lang yung mga pagsagot sa tanong nya
Post by: dpogs on Aug 09, 2015 at 11:27 PM
the question is if he believes in the bible.this is a real question and not sarcastic.baka naman kasi di sya naniniwala na may diyos at sa bibliya.useless lang yung mga pagsagot sa tanong nya
di pa naman useless... sabi nga magtanim lang ng magtanim ng punla... di natin alam baka ito ay bumagsak sa isang pusong naghahanap ng tunay na pananampalatay...
Post by: panzimus on Aug 10, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 10, 2015 at 06:48 AM
I don't think it would be useless. I take bumblebee's question as a question lang talaga. Ako din napaisip sa mga tanong nya.I only said useless kung di sya naniniwala sa Bible. paano naman sasagutin yung tanong nya about Jesus kung hindi sya naniniwala na ang namgyari sa Bible is real and not just a fairy tale. ano magiging basehan para sagutin tanong nya kung ganun?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:44 AM
I only said useless kung di sya naniniwala sa Bible. paano naman sasagutin yung tanong nya about Jesus kung hindi sya naniniwala na ang namgyari sa Bible is real and not just a fairy tale. ano magiging basehan para sagutin tanong nya kung ganun?
Kung naniniwala ako hook, line and sinker, hindi na ko magtatanong :) Like I said, some religion believes Jesus is human. May paliwanag sila dyan. When you say Jesus is God, may paliwanag rin naman siguro hindi ba?
Regarding my belief, I believe the Jesus is God who became man, meaning he is limited by his humanity then. He doesn't know quantum physics because it wasn't discovered yet at the time. He needs to feed, he needs to drink, he needs to breathe, else his body will die. He feels anger, frustration, maybe even romantic love and all those emotions you can think of. Did he know he was God? I'm thinking he was told he is. And he had difficulty understanding what this meant. That's why he prays.
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 10, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Kung naniniwala ako hook, line and sinker, hindi na ko magtatanong :) Like I said, some religion believes Jesus is human. May paliwanag sila dyan. When you say Jesus is God, may paliwanag rin naman siguro hindi ba?linawin ko lang, sa belief mo Jesus is God before then sinilang sya dito sa mundo na hindi nya alam na God na sya before? now I know where you are coming from. I have some and answers and some questions that I will post later
Regarding my belief, I believe the Jesus is God who became man, meaning he is limited by his humanity then. He doesn't know quantum physics because it wasn't discovered yet at the time. He needs to feed, he needs to drink, he needs to breathe, else his body will die. He feels anger, frustration, maybe even romantic love and all those emotions you can think of. Did he know he was God? I'm thinking he was told he is. And he had difficulty understanding what this meant. That's why he prays.
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 10, 2015 at 11:01 AM
Regarding my belief, I believe the Jesus is God who became man, meaning he is limited by his humanity then. He doesn't know quantum physics because it wasn't discovered yet at the time. He needs to feed, he needs to drink, he needs to breathe, else his body will die. He feels anger, frustration, maybe even romantic love and all those emotions you can think of. Did he know he was God? I'm thinking he was told he is. And he had difficulty understanding what this meant. That's why he prays.
Ayun naman pala. Kaya nga nagtataka ako pati pagdede natanong. ;D
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 10, 2015 at 11:11 AM
Ayun naman pala. Kaya nga nagtataka ako pati pagdede natanong. ;D
Wala namang kinalaman yung belief ko dun sa tanong. Actually, I thought about the baby thing same day I asked about it.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 10, 2015 at 12:27 PM
The reason why He prays is because bago pa man siya naging tao meron na siyang malalim na fellowship to God the Father... Porket ba nagkatawang tao na si Jesus di na nya puwedeng kausapin ang God the Father. He set an examplr also that we need prayer to have strwngth para matupad natin ang will of God.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 10, 2015 at 01:10 PM
Jesus as a baby, as a child, as a teenager will always stay as God... As a baby He knows all things because He is God, in a snap of a fonger pwede nya tawagin ang mga anghel sa sinumang mangaway sa kanya na bata... Pero sabi nga sa Bible Jesus submitted Himself to the will of God, He as a God experiencing physical pain, hunger, exhaustion, etc.
The reason why He prays is because bago pa man siya naging tao meron na siyang malalim na fellowship to God the Father... Porket ba nagkatawang tao na si Jesus di na nya puwedeng kausapin ang God the Father. He set an examplr also that we need prayer to have strwngth para matupad natin ang will of God.
wala naman nito sa bible:
Quote
As a baby He knows all things because He is God, in a snap of a fonger pwede nya tawagin ang mga anghel sa sinumang mangaway sa kanya na bata...
ano ba sabi sa Bible:
Quote
Luke 2:52New International Version (NIV)
52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
After the baptism lang ipinakita yung God-nature niya..
Post by: dpogs on Aug 10, 2015 at 01:28 PM
And He said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Nagkatawang tao lang naman si Jesus, hindi nawala ang pagkaDiyos niya, He choose to be subject under the will of the Father that i why He didnt perform miracles di niya pinakita na Diyos siya nun bata pa siya kasi di iyon ang plano ng Diyos.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 10, 2015 at 01:50 PM
Because that is the will of God. But Jesus as being God di nawala iyon nung sanggol hanggang sa lumaki siya. Sinabi pa nga niya nun bata siya ...
And He said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Nagkatawang tao lang naman si Jesus, hindi nawala ang pagkaDiyos niya, He choose to be subject under the will of the Father that i why He didnt perform miracles di niya pinakita na Diyos siya nun bata pa siya kasi di iyon ang plano ng Diyos.
Kung inde niya pinakita na Diyos siya eh nung baby pa siya, baby talaga at baby na tao, funtioning as baby na tao. Hanggang namatay siya tao pa rin.
Nung sinabe ng AMA na "this is my Son", doon niya ipinahayag na Siya ang Anak ng Dios, showing who is God in the flesh...
Kaya nga po huag paghaluin yung Divinity at Humanity ni Jesus, Jesus as human nabuhay kung paano nabubuhay ang tao. Jesus as the Son of God likewise show His Divinity..
Post by: pTrader on Aug 10, 2015 at 01:54 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 10, 2015 at 02:11 PM
And yes namuhay si Jesus as bata, nakaranas ng gutom physically, nauhaw physiclly, nasasaktan phusically... Pero Diyos siya at the same time. He is just obedient and submissive to the will of God.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 10, 2015 at 02:51 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/df/Littlemanposter.jpg/220px-Littlemanposter.jpg)
Post by: barrister on Aug 10, 2015 at 07:20 PM
Tao siya tapos inde umiiyak, nagugutom at nung baby pa siya inde nag pa breastfeed, e anong klaseng tao Siya?
Tama yan. Kung tunay na tao Siya, dapat pareho lang Siya ng ordinaryong tao, simula noong pagkabata.
Why did Jesus have to be like an ordinary human?
One reason is because we needed a High Priest who empathizes with our weaknesses. To do that, our High Priest must have experienced being an ordinary human:
17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Heb. 2:17-18)
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.(Heb. 4:15)
if Jesus did not have an ordinary childhood like us, then he would not have been like an ordinary human, and would not have fully empathized with us when He reached maturity.
===================================
After Jesus was found at the temple at 12 years old, the bible says:
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)
Therefore, Jesus as a human did not start with complete wisdom from birth. It was a gradual process that increased as He was maturing physically.
Why would the bible say that Jesus "increased in wisdom" from 12 years old onwards, if Jesus already had complete wisdom since birth?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 10, 2015 at 08:44 PM
40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
How can someone increased in wisdom if he is already full of wisdom?
As God im human form, Jesus can experience physical pain, physical tiredness, physical exhaustion... But His totality as God never change. His knowledge of all His creation, His knolwedge of His physical body, His knowledge being the Son of God Jesus knew them from the beginning. He is under God the Father's will so He cant exercise miracles, power or even show His great wisdom since it is not yet time.
He just exercise the wisdom in parallel on how he grow physically. Just imagined if Jesus as 1 yr old nang nagutom ay nagsalita at himingi ng dede? Though He can do it pero di nya kailangan gawin because its not yet His time. What He can do is to cry as a baby.
Nun nawawala siya ng 3 araw at nakita pero ang sabi niya ay "
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
12 yrs old siya He knew that He is the Son of God the Father.
Grow in wisdom and stature simply means He only exercise wisdom in respect to his physical form, He didnt talk while still a 1 year old baby its not yet His time, He didnt perform a miracle while still a teenager, not yet His time.
Post by: barrister on Aug 10, 2015 at 09:00 PM
Lets take a look verse 40
40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
How can someone increased in wisdom if he is already full of wisdom?
That was verse 40. The child was below 12 years old, he "waxed strong" (became strong) in spirit, filled with wisdom.
Now we go to 12 years old. This time, it's verse 52, after He was found at the temple (not before), from 12 years old until maturity, the bible says:
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (Luke 2:52)
Jesus still increased in wisdom from 12 years old to maturity.
From birth to 12 years, became strong in spirit. From 12 years to maturity, increased in wisdom.
A gradual process of increasing wisdom. Doesn't sound like someone who had complete wisdom since birth.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 10, 2015 at 09:43 PM
He cant tell anyone during His childhood or teen lahat ng alam niya kasi people will marvel and then it will spread hindi na siya makakapamuhay ng normal, and it is not yet His time until John.
When it comes to wisdom and knowledge God cannot be limited by His physical form since He is God but He need to endure being human for our salvation. He need to experience hunger, physical pain, etc. Being human baby doesnt mean God think also like a baby.
As a baby Jesus have knowledge and wisdom of a God, though He can feel hunger and need to cry to get the attention of Mary/Joseph, but if He choose to talk He can do it, but He didnt because its not yet His time. He is subjecting Himself to the will of God.
Post by: barrister on Aug 10, 2015 at 11:18 PM
Full of wisdom and then later verse says increase in wisdom... It only shows that Jesus knew all along since birth how to apply His full knowledge in accordance to His physical growth.
No, it doesn't show that. It only shows that He "increased in wisdom."
Don't add to what is not there.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 10, 2015 at 11:21 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 10, 2015 at 11:50 PM
No, it doesn't show that. It only shows that He "increased in wisdom."
Don't add to what is not there.
wisdom is how you apply your knowledge... Jesus full of knowledge fully aware what is happening in the past, present and future, full of grace and truth as a God didnt disappear when He is a baby because He still a God in human form.
as a young child He was all aware of His mission... He even told Mary/Joseph that He must be about His Father's business pero hindi siya maintindihan nila Mary... He knew in the beginning that He is preparing for the great plan of His God the Father.
<After the incident in the temple, we are told "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men" (Luke 2:52). If at this point in Jesus' experience He knew everything, it would not follow logically that He would need to "increase in wisdom." We know He had to grow physically (in stature), but we must also believe the scripture where our understanding fails us, that is, that He also put Himself voluntarily in a position where He needed to assimilate knowledge as a man. He needed to be truly man. He was always God, but He needed to become in all ways, except for sin, a man as well. In theological terms we refer to this as the hypostatic union. - qouted>
as a baby He knew Chinese language perfectly even Filipino... but as a human he didnt speak it (wisdom) because He need to learn it in human way through Mary and Joseph and people that sorround Him... as a God He knew carpenty perfectly better than Joseph, but as human He must learned it in human way through Joseph the carpenter...
<He learned as a human what He already knew as God-qouted>
thus increased wisdom and stature.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 06:25 AM
Language, I believe, is a human invention. So unless the Chinese are predestined to invent the Chinese language, he could have not possibly have known that.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 06:56 AM
Verse 40 said he was "filled with wisdom". It means he was wise. It doesn't say he was all-knowing.
Language, I believe, is a human invention. So unless the Chinese are predestined to invent the Chinese language, he could have not possibly have known that.
One of the attribute of God is all knowing, God knows the past, present and future, God knows everything, even the time you'll gonna reply on this thread, every bit of your imagination, He knows the code of every computer program created before, present and in the future, He even know every details/information in our DNA strands...
Jesus is both human and God, therefore Jesus is all knowing, during the time of conception, during Mary's pregnancy, during Mary's birth, during His childhood and adolascent period, every moment in Jesus life... Jesus said He is alpha and the Omega...
Ang pagiging Diyos niya ay hindi nawala or nagtapos noong nsa sinapupunan siya ni Mary or ng maging tao siya, not even His death on the cross or during His 3 days of burial... Human physical body doesnt limit Jesus of what He is capable as a God but since He is obedient to God Father's will He choose to limit/apply eternal knowledge/wisdom depend on what He learned in a human way of learning... the plan is to live as human as possible (except committing sin) and at the same time being God Himself...
-----
Language is not human invention. God created languages. When God created human there was only one language. He created different language to confuse human during the construction of tower of Babel and after that, human race was divided according to their languages.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 07:06 AM
Language is a human invention. Some nerds speak Klingon and Elvish. Hindi naman siguro kasama yung mga language na yun sa Tower of Babel :)
If God knew the future, where is free will?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 07:39 AM
Sorry dpogs, but those verses are very clear :)
Language is a human invention. Some nerds speak Klingon and Elvish. Hindi naman siguro kasama yung mga language na yun sa Tower of Babel :)
If God knew the future, where is free will?
Yup that verse is very clear... and it is very clear also that Jesus is God.
When God created Adam and Eve...do you think God just let them invent their own languange? In tower of Babel God put different languages to every human mouth to divide human race...
Free will is in you. you have your free will. dont tell me na God commanded you to reply on this thread... or someone ask you to reply on this thread... meron bang nagutos sa iyo na magsulat sa thread dito? kung wala then you've just excercised your free will.
one thing is wonderful here is even though we exercise our free will... God already knows it...
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 07:43 AM
Verse 40 said he was "filled with wisdom". It means he was wise. It doesn't say he was all-knowing.
Language, I believe, is a human invention. So unless the Chinese are predestined to invent the Chinese language, he could have not possibly have known that.
Do you believe that Jesus is God?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 07:44 AM
When God created Adam and Eve...do you think God just let them invent their own languange? In tower of Babel God put different languages to every human mouth to divide human race...
And that language would be?
Quote
one thing is wonderful here is even though we exercise our free will... God already knows it...
No, that is not wonderful and definitely not free will.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 07:49 AM
Do you believe that Jesus is God?
Kung naniniwala ako hook, line and sinker, hindi na ko magtatanong :) Like I said, some religion believes Jesus is human. May paliwanag sila dyan. When you say Jesus is God, may paliwanag rin naman siguro hindi ba?
Regarding my belief, I believe the Jesus is God who became man, meaning he is limited by his humanity then. He doesn't know quantum physics because it wasn't discovered yet at the time. He needs to feed, he needs to drink, he needs to breathe, else his body will die. He feels anger, frustration, maybe even romantic love and all those emotions you can think of. Did he know he was God? I'm thinking he was told he is. And he had difficulty understanding what this meant. That's why he prays.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:02 AM
And that language would be?
No, that is not wonderful and definitely not free will.
re: langugae
eto na lang about sa language... who put words in Adam and Eve mouth? i can say language evolves chnges throu time... those languages na ginawa ng Diyos to separate human race during tower of Babel might evolve thru time or nagbunga ng ibang language...puwede iyon... but God invented it.
re: free will
did someone commanded you to reply in this thread... if none, then you've just exercise your free will. is there someone force you to marry your wife? if none, then you've just exercise your free will. who decide that you will be half-practicing catholic? if none, then you've just exercise your free will...
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:08 AM
re: langugae
eto na lang about sa language... who put words in Adam and Eve mouth? i can say language evolves chnges throu time... those languages na ginawa ng Diyos to separate human race during tower of Babel might evolve thru time or nagbunga ng ibang language...puwede iyon... but God invented it.
Yung reasoning mo ang nag-e-evolve e :)
Quote
re: free will
did someone commanded you to reply in this thread... if none, then you've just exercise your free will. is there someone force you to marry your wife? if none, then you've just exercise your free will. who decide that you will be half-practicing catholic? if none, then you've just exercise your free will...
If someone knew I would be replying in this thread, marry my wife and that I'll be a half-practicing Catholic, then that's predestination. Not free will ;)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:23 AM
hmm... how do you define free will on the first place... i simply define free will as the ability to choose between different possible courses of action...
If God knew that you will reply in this thread, did it influence your decision? If God knew that you will marry your wife, did it influence your decision?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:29 AM
its up to you whether you believe human invented the language... but i tell you i believe God invented human language...
O sya, leave it at that :) Ginamit mo na yung "I believe" e.
Quote
hmm... how do you define free will on the first place... i simply define free will as the ability to choose between different possible courses of action...
Same here.
Quote
If God knew that you will reply in this thread, did it influence your decision? If God knew that you will marry your wife, did it influence your decision?
If God knew that I will reply in this thread, can I choose otherwise? If God knew that I will marry my wife, can I choose otherwise?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:36 AM
I might be not helpful enough na ipaliwanag sa iyo ang Bibiliya. Me myself have limitation and in need of constant Bible study.
Pero kung di maiiwasan, we will try to answers all your question regarding the Bible and its teachings. So its up to you if you believe them or not.
If God knew that I will reply in this thread, can I choose otherwise? If God knew that I will marry my wife, can I choose otherwise?
Yes.
"For every man shall bear his own burden." Gal.6:5 KJV
Post by: bosyo on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:37 AM
When someone uses the word belief or believe instead of know or knowing they obviously dont know what they are talking about.
If someone chooses to use the word belief or believe then they dont know if what they are saying is accurate they are only repeating what they are being told.
Sadly the most beliefs are dead-end streets, it's the point where you stop questioning. I respect beliefs, but there are way too many people who blindly follow the religion their brain got inserted, without questioning with the brain or the heart.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:46 AM
Belief is simply the state of not knowing, you either know something is true or something is false or you dont know.
When someone uses the word belief or believe instead of know or knowing they obviously dont know what they are talking about.
If someone chooses to use the word belief or believe then they dont know if what they are saying is accurate they are only repeating what they are being told.
Sadly the most beliefs are dead-end streets, it's the point where you stop questioning. I respect beliefs, but there are way too many people who blindly follow the religion their brain got inserted, without questioning with the brain or the heart.
its up to you whehter you belive with reason or you believe with true faith... the Bible teaches that human fall not because we didnt believe... it is because we are sinners.
the Bible can't explain everything... but it is complete in terms of our salvation.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:46 AM
Verse 40 said he was "filled with wisdom". It means he was wise. It doesn't say he was all-knowing.
Mark 13:32 KJV
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:50 AM
ganito na lang Bumblebee... search the Scripture first... if someone search the Scripture and is a true son of God (meaning saved, true believers)... God will reveal the answers thru the Scriptures...
I might be not helpful enough na ipaliwanag sa iyo ang Bibiliya. Me myself have limitation and in need of constant Bible study.
Pero kung di maiiwasan, we will try to answers all your question regarding the Bible and its teachings. So its up to you if you believe them or not.
Yes.
"For every man shall bear his own burden." Gal.6:5 KJV
Teka, that would make God wrong. I thought you said he knows everything?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:59 AM
Mark 13:32 KJV
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
Could it be possible that that day won't come? Can the Father change his mind?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:02 AM
Teka, that would make God wrong. I thought you said he knows everything?
Yes. One attribute of God is all knowing. Saan ko ba nasabi na hindi sila all knowing. baka nasagot ko ay confusing or wrong.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:03 AM
Yes. One attribute of God is all knowing. Saan ko ba nasabi na hindi sila all knowing. baka nasagot ko ay confusing or wrong.
Sabi mo I could choose otherwise?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:08 AM
Sabi mo I could choose otherwise?
yes. we have free will. whatever your choose is, God knows.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:12 AM
yes. we have free will. whatever your choose is, God knows.
Ganito. Red or Blue. God say I'll pick blue. Pwede ko bang piliin yung red?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:18 AM
Ganito. Red or Blue. God say I'll pick blue. Pwede ko bang piliin yung red?
ang usapan lang natin is "God knows"... wala naman sa usapan natin ang "God say"...
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:19 AM
ang usapan lang natin is "God knows"... wala naman sa usapan natin ang "God say"...
God knows I'll pick blue. Can I pick red?
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:41 AM
God knows I'll pick blue. Can I pick red?
How would you even know with certainty that God knows you'll pick blue?
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:55 AM
Could it be possible that that day won't come? Can the Father change his mind?
Of course. But the reason I posted that is to point you are correct in saying "Jesus is not ALL-KNOWING" unlike his Father.
Jesus' attributes are given to him by the Father.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:56 AM
How would you even know with certainty that God knows you'll pick blue?
I don't know. I don't need to know.
Put it this way. Satan went to heaven and asked what am I going to pick. God says blue. Will it be even possible that i'd choose red?
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 11, 2015 at 09:58 AM
I don't know. I don't need to know.
Put it this way. Satan went to heaven and asked what am I going to pick. God says blue. Will it be even possible that i'd choose red?
Foreknowledge vs Predestination
I'm gonna get my popcorn now and see where this goes. ;)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM
Post by: docelmo on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:02 AM
God knows I'll pick blue. Can I pick red?Sir,
I don't think you can....remember Jim Carrey when he tried to trick God(Morgan Freeman)..
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Sir,
I don't think you can....remember Jim Carrey when he tried to trick God(Morgan Freeman)..
So, no free will then.
Post by: barrister on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:16 AM
Sir,
I don't think you can....remember Jim Carrey when he tried to trick God(Morgan Freeman)..
You mean the seven fingers?
You have to admit sir bumblebee is right. That comedy scene illustrated how God prevented Bruce from changing his mind --- a clear case of lack of free will for Bruce.
There's no way around it. Either it's free will for man, or it's omniscience for God. Choose one. You can't have both.
Post by: NongP on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:24 AM
Post by: luis on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:26 AM
There's no way around it. Either man has free will, or God is omniscient. Choose one. You can't have both.
is it possible that in most cases man has a free will but in certain critical instances we have dos and dont's. ex. adam and eve eating the apple.
;D
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:29 AM
I don't know. I don't need to know.
Put it this way. Satan went to heaven and asked what am I going to pick. God says blue. Will it be even possible that i'd choose red?
You can choose red. Will you choose red?
Post by: barrister on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:31 AM
is it possible that in most cases man has a free will but in certain critical instances we have dos and dont's. ex. adam and eve eating the apple.
;D
Don't say "apple." Just say "fruit." ;)
Man always has free will. God is not omniscient.
God didn't know in advance what Adam and Eve would decide to do, that's why they had to be tested.
Post by: barrister on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:34 AM
Hindi ba kaya ginawa ni Morgan Freeman yon is because he knows that Jim Carey is trying to trick him.
Tama. Yun na nga yung joke sa scene na yon.
But the principle remains the same. Bruce wanted 5, but God prevented him from choosing 5. No free will.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 11, 2015 at 12:56 PM
Lets take a look verse 40
40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
How can someone increased in wisdom if he is already full of wisdom?
As God im human form, Jesus can experience physical pain, physical tiredness, physical exhaustion... But His totality as God never change. His knowledge of all His creation, His knolwedge of His physical body, His knowledge being the Son of God Jesus knew them from the beginning. He is under God the Father's will so He cant exercise miracles, power or even show His great wisdom since it is not yet time.
He just exercise the wisdom in parallel on how he grow physically. Just imagined if Jesus as 1 yr old nang nagutom ay nagsalita at himingi ng dede? Though He can do it pero di nya kailangan gawin because its not yet His time. What He can do is to cry as a baby.
Nun nawawala siya ng 3 araw at nakita pero ang sabi niya ay "
49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
12 yrs old siya He knew that He is the Son of God the Father.
Grow in wisdom and stature simply means He only exercise wisdom in respect to his physical form, He didnt talk while still a 1 year old baby its not yet His time, He didnt perform a miracle while still a teenager, not yet His time.
And the child grew - why?
, and waxed strong in spirit - why?
, filled with wisdom: - why?
and the grace of God was upon him. - why?
why? why? why? why?
Post by: docelmo on Aug 11, 2015 at 02:16 PM
Hahaha yeah parang illustration nga ng omniscience and free will yun. He had fore knowledge but when Bruce changed his mind by cheating...God showed him what he actually picked! But that's just a movie...
You mean the seven fingers?
You have to admit sir bumblebee is right. That comedy scene illustrated how God prevented Bruce from changing his mind --- a clear case of lack of free will for Bruce.
There's no way around it. Either it's free will for man, or it' omniscience for God. Choose one. You can't have both.
Yeah, at first glance mukhang incompatible nga yung God's Omniscience w/ Man's Free will. In my opinion being omniscient doesn't mean influencing or totally controlling the actions or decisions of man. Having fore knowledge is not equivalent to controlling the choice or outcome it is merely knowing. Which means that man's free will is still intact and present And could be compatible w/ an omniscient God.
Post by: barrister on Aug 11, 2015 at 04:29 PM
Pag pinilit mong i-reconcile yan, kung anu-anong illogical reasoning ang kailangan mong ipilit.
If you've been indoctrinated since childhood that God is omniscient, it's going to be a struggle to wrap your head around the concept that He is not omniscient.
Alam pala ng Diyos na kakainin nina Adan at Eba ang prutas. Nilagay pa Niya ang bawal na prutas sa Eden, tapos pinagbawal kainin, alam naman na kakainin. Ano yon, nilalaro lang tayo ng Diyos?
Alam ng Diyos na susunod si Abraham sa utos na patayin ang anak niya. Alam naman pala na susunod nga si Abraham, inutos pa, gusto pa yung nagkaroon ng traumatic experience si Abraham.
Clearly illogical.
If you want to study this topic deeper, here's the first step--- can the word "omniscient" be found anywhere in the bible?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 11, 2015 at 05:10 PM
Man's free will and God's so-called omniscience are incompatible and irreconcilable.
Pag pinilit mong i-reconcile yan, kung anu-anong illogical reasoning ang kailangan mong ipilit.
If you've been indoctrinated since childhood that God is omniscient, it's going to be a struggle to wrap your head around the concept that He is not omniscient.
Alam pala ng Diyos na kakainin nina Adan at Eba ang prutas. Nilagay pa Niya ang bawal na prutas sa Eden, tapos pinagbawal kainin, alam naman na kakainin. Ano yon, nilalaro lang tayo ng Diyos?
Alam ng Diyos na susunod si Abraham sa utos na patayin ang anak niya. Alam naman pala na susunod nga si Abraham, inutos pa, gusto pa yung nagkaroon ng traumatic experience si Abraham.
Clearly illogical.
If you want to study this topic deeper, here's the first step--- can the word "omniscient" be found anywhere in the bible?
additional verse to ponder:
Quote
Proverbs 16:4King James Version (KJV)
4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 05:20 PM
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 1 Jn. 3:20 KJV
Post by: barrister on Aug 11, 2015 at 05:53 PM
There is no "omniscient" in the Bible but the Bible tells us that God knoweth all things.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 1 Jn. 3:20 KJV
Bibitinin ko sana ang 1 John 3:20 para kay kapatid na docelmo, pero nilabas mo agad sir... ;D nawala tuloy yung step-by-step approach ko... ;)
1 John 3:20 must be read in context with verses 16-23:
16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?
18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. (1 John 3:16-23)
The topic is love in deed and in truth that we know in our hearts.
If you fail to help your fellowman, you do not have real love. Love in truth means not just love in words, but with action and in truth. We know our love is true because love is in our heart (conscience). And if we have true love for our fellowman, we are confident before God because God knows what is in our heart.
Verse 20:
20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.
If in our heart we do not have true love for fellowman, God will know. We know what is in our own hearts. And since God is greater that our hearts, God would also know. Why? Because God knows all things that are in our hearts.
Verse 21:
21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.
It's still about what is in our heart, not about what is not yet in our heart.
Does God know the things that are not yet in our heart? No.
But once it is in our heart, does God know everything that is in our heart? Yes.
That's what the verse is about. It is not about omniscience that includes things that violate free will.
===================================
God knows what we are doing in secret. He knows what we are thinking in secret. But He does not know what we are not yet thinking.
Therefore, God does not know what we have not yet decided. Why not? Because if God knew what we will decide even before we decide it, then we cannot say that we have free will.
The story of Abraham and Isaac will not make sense any other way:
The story would be perfectly clear if you recognize that, contrary to popular belief, God is not omniscient; otherwise, the story would not make any sense.
The Genesis story of Abraham and Isaac is one proof that God is not omniscient regarding matters concerning human free will.
To test Abraham, God commanded him to slay his only son Issac as an offering. As Abraham was about to slay his son with a knife, God said to Abraham through an angel:
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22:12)
God did not say that He knew what Abraham was going to do even before he was tested. God said "now I know", meaning that God knew only at that moment, not beforehand.
How did God know? Because God is omniscient?
No. God knew only when He saw that Abraham was ready to slay his son.
And that is why we are on this earth. We are here to be tested, in order to find out if we are worthy to be with God in heaven. Why does God have to test us to find out if we should be in heaven or in hell? Because God is not omniscient.
When God ordered Abraham to slay his son Isaac, Abraham decided to obey. Did God know that Abraham decided to obey? Yes, because God knows everything in his heart. But that decision was made before Abraham actually carried it out to completion.
Did God know whether Abraham would change his mind and back out later at the last moment, when he's actually holding a knife to his own son? No, that's why Abraham had to undergo an actual test.
Post by: barrister on Aug 11, 2015 at 08:22 PM
additional verse to ponder:
Proverbs 16:4King James Version (KJV)
4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
That's another mistranslation by the KJV.
"For himself" is wrong. It should be "to its proper end."
The NIV has a better rendition: 4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end—even the wicked for a day of disaster.
==================================
The original word used was lam·ma·‘ă·nê·hū; root word "maaneh," which means "answer or response." That's Strong's #4617: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4617.htm (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4617.htm)
This what the verse means: The Lord works out everything for their own proper end --- yes, the wicked will end up in hell.
God made all of us to end up with God's proper "answer or response" (maaneh). Those who choose good, the "answer or response" will be heaven; those who choose evil, the "answer or response" will be hell.
===================================
Reading the KJV's rendition, it looks like God created wicked people for hell; that they are predestined to go to hell, and they will never be able to do anything to change that.
This wrong rendition of Prov. 16:4 is used by Calvinists to support their false doctrine of predestination. Calvinist beliefs can be found in some Protestant denominations.
===================================
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Prov16_4.html (http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Prov16_4.html)
http://www.covenantoflove.net/hell/proverbs-164-does-god-actually-make-the-wicked-specifically-for-destruction/ (http://www.covenantoflove.net/hell/proverbs-164-does-god-actually-make-the-wicked-specifically-for-destruction/)
http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/wicked_punishment_proverbs.php (http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/wicked_punishment_proverbs.php)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 11, 2015 at 11:45 PM
hmm... regarding that "heart matters"... let me search the Scriptures first :)
Let me verify again your stand to one of the attributes of God, you believe that God doesnt know what is in the future?
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Let me verify again your stand to one of the attributes of God, you believe that God doesnt know what is in the future?
That's not my belief.
God knows the future, of course.
Tadtad nga ng prophecy ang bible, di ba? Basahin mo lang ang Revelation, hindi puwedeng sabihin ng kahit sinong bible student na hindi alam ng Diyos ang future.
Ang sinasabi ko, ang hindi alam ng Diyos, yun lang mga bagay na affected ang free will natin. Alam ng Diyos ang iniisip natin, pero hindi Niya alam yung bagay na hindi pa natin iniisip. Everything else, alam ng Diyos.
Tanong sa akin ni Kuya Nelson, baka naman kaya ng Diyos alamin kung ano ang iisipin natin in the future, pero pinili lang ng Diyos na hindi alamin yon, to preserve our free will?
Sabi ko, that's possible. Wala akong sagot, kasi wala ring sagot sa bible. We should maintain the discipline of not adding information where none is given.
Post by: Timithekid on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:07 AM
That's not my belief.
God knows the future, of course.
Tadtad nga ng prophecy ang bible, di ba? Basahin mo lang ang Revelation, hindi puwedeng sabihin ng kahit sinong bible student na hindi alam ng Diyos ang future.
Ang sinasabi ko, ang hindi alam ng Diyos, yun lang mga bagay na affected ang free will natin. Alam ng Diyos ang iniisip natin, pero hindi Niya alam yung bagay na hindi pa natin iniisip. Everything else, alam ng Diyos.
Tanong sa akin ni Kuya Nelson, baka naman kaya ng Diyos alamin kung ano ang iisipin natin in the future, pero pinili lang ng Diyos na hindi alamin yon, to preserve our free will?
Sabi ko, that's possible. Wala akong sagot, kasi wala ring sagot sa bible. We should maintain the discipline of not adding information where none is given.
So atty. tanungin ko narin dito yung usapan natin sa PM. If omniscient is not the word to describe a being of this much knowledge, then what is? because to a certain degree he knows all, with the exception of free will. but the result of each choice that man "may" take, is still known to him.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:09 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:27 AM
Alam pala ng Diyos na kakainin nina Adan at Eba ang prutas. Nilagay pa Niya ang bawal na prutas sa Eden, tapos pinagbawal kainin, alam naman na kakainin. Ano yon, nilalaro lang tayo ng Diyos?
God created all things for Himself.
Rom.11:36 KJV "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
What is our purpose... What is the purpose of all His creation. To glorify Him. If human didnt fall, can human witness grace?
Wihtout the fall of Adam and Eve, we will never know God's love, mercy, compassion, grace. How can we glorify God without experiencing the fall?
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:39 AM
Jesus knew all along that Peter will disown Him.Jesus knew what was going to happen
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:44 AM
Don't say "apple." Just say "fruit." ;)
Man always has free will. God is not omniscient.
God didn't know in advance what Adam and Eve would decide to do, that's why they had to be tested.
[/quote
pero dito atty pinakita na alam na ni Jesus kung ano mangyayari,alam na nya kung ano gagawin ni Pedro
And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.
Jesus knew all along that Peter will disown Him.Jesus knew what was going to happen
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 02:02 AM
God knows I'll pick blue. Can I pick red?if God knows you'll pick blue,then you will pick blue not red.God knows you will pick blue for a certain reason.The reason you will pick blue is because you like it not because God told you too.because whether you like it or not God knows you inside and out
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:27 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:41 AM
^Let me clarify. You're saying God knows what I'm going to do days from now?
Yes. He knows the future.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:42 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:07 AM
^So, wala ngang free will as my path is already laid down before me. You agree na?
You still have free will right at this moment. Whatever is your action (free will) today (right this moment) at ang ripple effect nito, God already knew it.
nagkasundo na tayo sa kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng free will: the ability to choose between different possible courses of action
sa path na sinasabi mo na naka laid na: Are you not able to choose them by your own? You dont have ability to choose? That path na nakalaid before you, it is you who walked on it. It is by your own decision why you are walking on that path.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:47 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:24 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:29 AM
sa path na sinasabi mo na naka laid na: Are you not able to choose them by your own? You dont have ability to choose? That path na nakalaid before you, it is you who walked on it. It is by your own decision why you are walking on that path.
Can I not walk on that path?
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:31 AM
I believe the confusion is on what really the definition of "free will".
Your confusion arises from your refusal to discard what you learned from your religious sect.
That's what the bible is for. To check whether the doctrines in your sect are correct or not.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:44 AM
And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.
Jesus knew all along that Peter will disown Him.Jesus knew what was going to happen
In that case, Jesus knew what was going to happen only hours before it happened. Not decades before, not before Peter was born.
That's because Jesus knew what was really in Peter's heart that night. Peter said he was ready to go to his death for Jesus. But Jesus knew that in Peter's heart it was not so. Jesus also knew what Judas, the soldiers and the religious leaders had in their hearts, so He knew about the scheduled arrest and trial. Jesus also knew the hearts and plans of the other Jews, so He knew that there would be people looking for Jesus' followers that night to kill them, and some will recognize Peter.
No violation of free will there.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:47 AM
So atty. tanungin ko narin dito yung usapan natin sa PM. If omniscient is not the word to describe a being of this much knowledge, then what is? because to a certain degree he knows all, with the exception of free will. but the result of each choice that man "may" take, is still known to him.
That's right.
But I'm not aware of any term the bible uses to describe it, so I don't invent my own term.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:51 AM
Your confusion arises from your refusal to discard what you learned from your religious sect.
That's what the bible is for. To check whether the doctrines in your sect are correct or not.
There are food suitable for children and there are food fit for adults only.
In sharing way of salvation, how to believe, how to have faith to unbelievers, it is difficult if i discuss with them the doctrine of election. i choose to tell them it is always our choice to believe and we are responsible sa lahat ng ating ginawa.
:)
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:59 AM
If God knows the future then He knows every decision na ginawa natin, ginagawa at gagawin pa lang.
Haka-haka mo lang yon sir. That's not biblical.
God knows the future, but He does not interfere with our free will.
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. (Gen. 22:12)
"Now I know." When did God know? Now. Not beforehand.
"Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son." How did God know? God saw what Abraham was about to do. He would not have known if He had not seen. He knew when He saw, not beforehand.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 09:01 AM
There are food suitable for children and there are food fit for adults only.
In sharing way of salvation, how to believe, how to have faith to unbelievers, it is difficult if i discuss with them the doctrine of election. i choose to tell them it is always our choice to believe and we are responsible sa lahat ng ating ginawa.
:)
Let's put it this way.
Have you ever contradicted any doctrine of your sect?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 09:13 AM
Let's put it this way.
Have you ever contradicted any doctrine of your sect?
- free will in terms of salvation
- who will be save (elect vs whosever)
- some minor local church conviction (dress code, places to visit, etc) ;)
modify: under local church conviction
- food to eat (i want to eat all kinds of food as long as hindi panis)
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 12, 2015 at 09:37 AM
Can I not walk on that path?
Will you not walk on that path?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 12, 2015 at 09:42 AM
Will you not walk on that path?
I really don't know where you're going with this. Anyway, hindi ko naman alam yung path ko e. But God already knows, right? Meaning, there's no escaping that path. Gets mo na rin ba?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 09:50 AM
So atty. tanungin ko narin dito yung usapan natin sa PM. If omniscient is not the word to describe a being of this much knowledge, then what is? because to a certain degree he knows all, with the exception of free will. but the result of each choice that man "may" take, is still known to him.
That's right.
But I'm not aware of any term the bible uses to describe it, so I don't invent my own term.
a man exercise his free will and since God knows the future, He knew what will be the man's choice.
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM
I really don't know where you're going with this. Anyway, hindi ko naman alam yung path ko e. But God already knows, right? Meaning, there's no escaping that path. Gets mo na rin ba?
Alamin mo muna siguro what path you are taking. And if you decide on one, God knows you will eventually choose that path. So may free will nga. It's not...there's no escaping that path. But He knows you well enough which path you will take.
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:04 AM
^Let me clarify. You're saying God knows what I'm going to do days from now?oo naman,na predict nga ni Jesus that Peter will disown him not once, not twice but three times. Peter has a chance to prove Jesus wrong but didn't. ganun sya kakilala ng diyos
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:13 AM
oo naman,na predict nga ni Jesus that Peter will disown him not once, not twice but three times. Peter has a chance to prove Jesus wrong but didn't. ganun sya kakilala ng diyos
Well, ako hindi ko pa alam. You see what I mean now?
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM
In that case, Jesus knew what was going to happen only hours before it happened. Not decades before, not before Peter was born.ok, how about the story of Joseph the dreamer. he was told what was going to happen years ago di ba?not hours before it will happen
That's because Jesus knew what was really in Peter's heart that night. Peter said he was ready to go to his death for Jesus. But Jesus knew that in Peter's heart it was not so. Jesus also knew what Judas, the soldiers and the religious leaders had in their hearts, so He knew about the scheduled arrest and trial. Jesus also knew the hearts and plans of the other Jews, so He knew that there would be people looking for Jesus' followers that night to kill them, and some will recognize Peter.
No violation of free will there.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 10:27 AM
That's another mistranslation by the KJV.
"For himself" is wrong. It should be "to its proper end."
The NIV has a better rendition: 4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end—even the wicked for a day of disaster.
==================================
The original word used was lam·ma·‘ă·nê·hū; root word "maaneh," which means "answer or response." That's Strong's #4617: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4617.htm (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4617.htm)
This what the verse means: The Lord works out everything for their own proper end --- yes, the wicked will end up in hell.
God made all of us to end up with God's proper "answer or response" (maaneh). Those who choose good, the "answer or response" will be heaven; those who choose evil, the "answer or response" will be hell.
===================================
Reading the KJV's rendition, it looks like God created wicked people for hell; that they are predestined to go to hell, and they will never be able to do anything to change that.
This wrong rendition of Prov. 16:4 is used by Calvinists to support their false doctrine of predestination. Calvinist beliefs can be found in some Protestant denominations.
===================================
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Prov16_4.html (http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/OT/Prov16_4.html)
http://www.covenantoflove.net/hell/proverbs-164-does-god-actually-make-the-wicked-specifically-for-destruction/ (http://www.covenantoflove.net/hell/proverbs-164-does-god-actually-make-the-wicked-specifically-for-destruction/)
http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/wicked_punishment_proverbs.php (http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/wicked_punishment_proverbs.php)
You are making a wrong judgement on Calvinism.
Mat 1:21
New International Version
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
New Living Translation
And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
English Standard Version
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
New American Standard Bible
"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
I will ask you then why Jesus will save His people not All People?
and why God will show mercy on whom He have mercy.
Romans 9:14
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
How come that the Saviour only save His people?
Additional:
4 The Lord works out everything to its proper end—even the wicked for a day of disaster.
in the translation you have shown, there is a proper end for everything.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 11:10 AM
You are making a wrong judgement on Calvinism.
I hope you're not offended sir.
That's my personal view. I admit I could be wrong, why not.
Si sir dpogs, sanay na sa akin. There are many beliefs we disagree on. When he says I'm wrong, Ok lang. Those are just details.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 11:19 AM
ok, how about the story of Joseph the dreamer. he was told what was going to happen years ago di ba?not hours before it will happen
Sure. Joseph predicted the famine. Walang violation of human free will doon.
How do you explain the story of Abraham and Isaac?
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 11:24 AM
How come that the Saviour only save His people?
His people means those who follow His commandments. Those who repeatedly sin are not His people. That's free will. You choose to follow Him or not.
That is not predestination.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:01 PM
I hope you're not offended sir.
That's my personal view. I admit I could be wrong, why not.
Si sir dpogs, sanay na sa akin. There are many beliefs we disagree on. When he says I'm wrong, Ok lang. Those are just details.
Ok lang sir, no problemo, marami na rin na attacking the Calvinism pero lacking the roots of what is Calvinism is all about...
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:07 PM
His people means those who follow His commandments. Those who repeatedly sin are not His people. That's free will. You choose to follow Him or not.
That is not predestination.
Not so as you explained. Please take a look at this verse:
Romans 9:25 As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
It is God's choice.
and then again:
Romans 3:10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
Think of it..
and now who are His people?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:13 PM
a man exercise his free will and since God knows the future, He knew what will be the man's choice.
Can anyone choose God?
Romans 3:10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:16 PM
In that case, Jesus knew what was going to happen only hours before it happened. Not decades before, not before Peter was born.
That's because Jesus knew what was really in Peter's heart that night. Peter said he was ready to go to his death for Jesus. But Jesus knew that in Peter's heart it was not so. Jesus also knew what Judas, the soldiers and the religious leaders had in their hearts, so He knew about the scheduled arrest and trial. Jesus also knew the hearts and plans of the other Jews, so He knew that there would be people looking for Jesus' followers that night to kill them, and some will recognize Peter.
No violation of free will there.
i think it's a premonition. yung ibang tao may gift na ganyan, si Jesus pa kaya.
pati kilalang kilala na ni Jesus si Peter. Na test na nga faith ni Peter nung naglakad sila sa dagat.
pwede naman talaga ma foresee ang future base sa plan at current situation. parang laro sa chess. kita mo na mangyayari after ng ilang moves o napakaraming moves. imminent at bound to happen ang nakita ni Jesus at walang violation ng free will dun.
binigay kasi ng Diyos ang free will kaya di Nya ito pwede i suppress o i control. pero pwede Nya kunin ang buhay kung kailan Nya gusto.
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:16 PM
Sure. Joseph predicted the famine. Walang violation of human free will doon.atty, my post about Peter is to prove a point that God knows everything, not about free will. sure Jesus knows Peters heart. that he will deny Him. but how does Jesus knows that Peter will be asked 3 times and that Peter will deny Him. doesn't that prove that God is all knowing?
How do you explain the story of Abraham and Isaac?
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:22 PM
may free will ba ang tao? wala namang free will ang tao, kung may free will siya bakit inde niya magawa lahat ng gustuhin niya?
may katapat ang free wil na bigay sa tao. yun ang mga kautusan ng Diyos. ngayon, nasa iyo na yun kung ano choice mo. ipinaalam din naman ang mga consequences kaya bahala ka. si Satan nga, dating angel of light, ang taas na ng position, pero dahil sa free will nya, naghangad pa.
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:22 PM
may free will ba ang tao? wala namang free will ang tao, kung may free will siya bakit inde niya magawa lahat ng gustuhin niya?may free will ka bro, kung gusto mo ng tumalon mula sa 12th floor puede mong gawin yun. pero kung pagtalon mo e gusto mong lumipad at lumanding sa lupa ng di nasasaktan, e ibang usapan na yun
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:24 PM
may free will ka bro, kung gusto mo ng tumalon mula sa 12th floor puede mong gawin yun. pero kung pagtalon mo e gusto mong lumipad at lumanding sa lupa ng di nasasaktan, e ibang usapan na yun
any will that is bounded is not free.. meron lang choices ang tao ayon sa boundaries na ibinigay ng Dios.
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:28 PM
any will that is bounded is not free.. meron lang choices ang tao ayon sa boundaries na ibinigay ng Dios.
di absolute ang free will. kailangan mo rin kasi i respect free will ng iba.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:32 PM
di absolute ang free will. kailangan mo rin kasi i respect free will ng iba.
gaya ng sinabi ko if you are bounded then you are not free.
Man was given a will but not free. Pag sinabing free will kaya niyang gawin lahat na walang restriction..
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:33 PM
any will that is bounded is not free.. meron lang choices ang tao ayon sa boundaries na ibinigay ng Dios.ah, ang gusto mo pala ay superpower.
any will that is bounded is not free.. meron lang choices ang tao ayon sa boundaries na ibinigay ng Dios.can you give an example of a will that is bounded? kasi ang nasa isip ko ngaun eh gusto mo ng superpowers.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Can anyone choose God?
Romans 3:10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
That is one of my favorite verses. i know what it means when it comes to nature of man. the concept you want to share is usually i didnt mention them in sharing the word of God to unbelievers. as long they know that we are sinners, as long as they know that we need a saving grace, as long as they accept in theirselves that they need a saviour, then as much as possible i didnt mention the total depravity of men.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:38 PM
ah, ang gusto mo pala ay superpower. can you give an example of a will that is bounded? kasi ang nasa isip ko ngaun eh gusto mo ng superpowers.
i think what ptrader means is law of nature...
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:39 PM
gaya ng sinabi ko if you are bounded then you are not free.
Man was given a will but not free. Pag sinabing free will kaya niyang gawin lahat na walang restriction..
pwede mo namang gawin kung anong gusto mo. pero isipin mo na di lang ikaw ang nabubuhay sa mundo.
kung ganun din sila, pwede ka rin nilang ma perwisyo at di ka makapamuhay ng maayos.
chaos pag walang batas o respeto sa isa't isa, alam mo yan. kaya nga tayo may gobyerno. pero kung gusto mo absolute free will, punta ka sa sa mars, malaya ka dun ;)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:40 PM
ah, ang gusto mo pala ay superpower. can you give an example of a will that is bounded? kasi ang nasa isip ko ngaun eh gusto mo ng superpowers.
Everything here on earth, invisible and visisble are under the supervision of God. We are living under God's authority.. nasaan yung free will doon?
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Everything here on earth, invisible and visisble are under the supervision of God. We are living under God's authority.. nasaan yung free will doon?
then be like God or follow Satan ;)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:44 PM
pwede mo namang gawin kung anong gusto mo. pero isipin mo na di lang ikaw ang nabubuhay sa mundo.
kung ganun din sila, pwede ka rin nilang ma perwisyo at di ka makapamuhay ng maayos.
chaos pag walang batas o respeto sa isa't isa, alam mo yan. kaya nga tayo may gobyerno. pero kung gusto mo absolute free will, punta ka sa sa mars, malaya ka dun ;)
pag under ka sa batas nasaan ang free will doon? e lahat tao under the laws of God, nasaan din ang free will doon.
Choices lang ang meron ang tao.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:45 PM
then be like God or follow Satan ;)
wala rin namamg free will si Satan, bagsak niya kullungan ng Dios.. asan yung free will doon?
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:52 PM
pag under ka sa batas nasaan ang free will doon? e lahat tao under the laws of God, nasaan din ang free will doon.
Choices lang ang meron ang tao.
free ka naman na i violate ang batas, choice mo yun.
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:57 PM
magsabi ka ng totoo, me balak kang gumawa ng masama no?
pag under ka sa batas nasaan ang free will doon? e lahat tao under the laws of God, nasaan din ang free will doon.
Choices lang ang meron ang tao.
Post by: jerix on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:58 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 12:59 PM
free ka naman na i violate ang batas, choice mo yun.
so it is your choice to be free..
so itis your choice to decide what to do..
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:01 PM
wala rin namamg free will si Satan, bagsak niya kullungan ng Dios.. asan yung free will doon?
God is almighty and at the same time, a just God.
Post by: majoe on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:04 PM
so it is your choice to be free..
so itis your choice to decide what to do..
absolutely ;)
pero isipin mo, di lang ikaw ang nabubuhay sa mundo. remember the golden rule?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:07 PM
absolutely ;)
pero isipin mo, di lang ikaw ang nabubuhay sa mundo. remember the golden rule?
That is why I love what God has done, he put boundaries..
Acts 17:26
English Standard Version
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:25 PM
That is one of my favorite verses. i know what it means when it comes to nature of man. the concept you want to share is usually i didnt mention them in sharing the word of God to unbelievers. as long they know that we are sinners, as long as they know that we need a saving grace, as long as they accept in theirselves that they need a saviour, then as much as possible i didnt mention the total depravity of men.
so ayaw mo ng Rose gusto mo TULIP?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:37 PM
so ayaw mo ng Rose gusto mo TULIP?
i only like the first 's'
and definitely give daisy to new believer.
and then later introduce the roses.
last is tulip.
but i will never introduce them when sharing the Word of God.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:50 PM
i only like the first 's'
and definitely give daisy to new believer.
and then later introduce the roses.
last is tulip.
but i will never introduce them when sharing the Word of God.
is TULIP a good base for Christianity?
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 02:02 PM
Masisira na ang ulo ni sir bumblebee sa gulo ng sinasabi ninyo na "free will" kuno, e Five-Point Calvinism pala yon.
===================================
To those not yet familiar with the doctrine, here's a brief rundown:
Five-Point Calvinists believe in TULIP, an acronym that stands for:
1. Total Depravity - All men are depraved in sin, so they can't respond to God. Since no man can respond, God elected and predestined a special group of people to salvation. May favoritism pala ang Diyos.
2. Unconditional Election - The special group of the elect were chosen by God since eternity past. "Unconditional" because the election and predestination are not conditioned on man's response. Membership in the elect group is predetermined by God, so if you're not part of it, sorry ka na lang.
3. Limited Atonement - Salvation is not for all, it's only for a limited group --- Limited Atonement. Salvation will come only to those who were elected, and Christ died only for them. Pag hindi ka kasama sa exclusive group, pasensiya ka, kasi wala kang pag-asa kahit konti.
4. Irresistible Grace - When God calls you, you can't resist. You are predestined to salvation, and it will be impossible for you to refuse it. Walang free will diyan, kaya itapon mo na ang free will mo.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - Those predestined to salvation will persevere in faith. The perseverance is automatic and irresistible, kaya wala talagang free will. Since you are predestined to salvation, no matter what you do, you will always be saved. Once Saved, Always Saved ("OSAS").
Post by: dpogs on Aug 12, 2015 at 02:06 PM
is TULIP a good base for Christianity?
to appreciate more the grace of God, yes.
but to win the hearts of sinners, no.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 02:28 PM
Instead of saying "TULIP," why don't you just say that you believe man has no free will in the matter of salvation?
Masisira na ang ulo ni sir bumblebee sa gulo ng sinasabi ninyo na "free will" kuno, e Five-Point Calvinism pala yon.
===================================
To those not yet familiar with the doctrine, here's a brief rundown:
Five-Point Calvinists believe in TULIP, an acronym that stands for:
1. Total Depravity - All men are depraved in sin, so they can't respond to God. Since no man can respond, God elected and predestined a special group of people to salvation. May favoritism pala ang Diyos.
2. Unconditional Election - The special group of the elect were chosen by God since eternity past. "Unconditional" because the election and predestination are not conditioned on man's response. Your membership in the elect group is predetermined by God, so if you're not part of it, sorry ka na lang.
3. Limited Atonement - Salvation is not for all, it's only for a limited group --- Limited Atonement. Salvation will come only to those who were elected, and Christ died only for them. Pag hindi ka kasama sa exclusive group, pasensiya ka, kasi wala kang pag-asa kahit konti.
4. Irresistible Grace - When God calls you, you can't resist. You are predestined to salvation, and it will be impossible for you to refuse it. Walang free will diyan, kaya itapon mo na ang free will mo.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - Those predestined to salvation will persevere in faith. The perseverance is automatic and irresistible, kaya wala talagang free will. Since you are predestined to salvation, no matter what you do, you will always be saved. Once Saved, Always Saved ("OSAS").
TULIP for you:
Total Depravity
Our sinful corruption is so deep and so strong as to make us slaves of sin and morally unable to overcome our own rebellion and blindness. This inability to save ourselves from ourselves is total. We are utterly dependent on God’s grace to overcome our rebellion, give us eyes to see, and effectively draw us to the Savior.
Unconditional Election
God’s election is an unconditional act of free grace that was given through his Son Jesus before the world began. By this act, God chose, before the foundation of the world, those who would be delivered from bondage to sin and brought to repentance and saving faith in Jesus.
Irresistible Grace
This means that the resistance that all human beings exert against God every day (Romans 3:10–12; Acts 7:51) is wonderfully overcome at the proper time by God’s saving grace for undeserving rebels whom he chooses freely to save.
Limited Atonement
The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all humans and effective for those who trust him. It is not limited in its worth or sufficiency to save all who believe. But the full, saving effectiveness of the atonement that Jesus accomplished is limited to those for whom that saving effect was prepared. The availability of the total sufficiency of the atonement is for all people. Whosoever will — whoever believes — will be covered by the blood of Christ. And there is a divine design in the death of Christ to accomplish the promises of the new covenant for the chosen bride of Christ. Thus Christ died for all people, but not for all in the same way.
Perseverance of the Saints
We believe that all who are justified will win the fight of faith. They will persevere in faith and will not surrender finally to the enemy of their souls. This perseverance is the promise of the new covenant, obtained by the blood of Christ, and worked in us by God himself, yet not so as to diminish, but only to empower and encourage, our vigilance; so that we may say in the end, I have fought the good fight, but it was not I, but the grace of God which was with me (2 Timothy 4:7; 1 Corinthians 15:10).
Question lang, saan ka kumukuha ng definition mo about Calvinism, kasi tainted eh..
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 02:38 PM
Puwede mong sabihin na tainted yung akin, puwede ko ring sabihin na sanitized yung sa iyo. Depende sa viewpoint.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 02:50 PM
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm (http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm)
Puwede mong sabihin na tainted yung akin, puwede ko ring sabihin na sanitized yung sa iyo. Depende sa viewpoint.
eto yung nasa website na yun:
Quote
Total Depravity:
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).
Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).
Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).
Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37).
Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.
wala namang "speacial group of people " dun ahh at "exclusive group"...
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 05:32 PM
eto yung nasa website na yun:
wala namang "speacial group of people " dun ahh at "exclusive group"...
Meron.
Wala ngang letra-por-letra, pero meron sa kahulugan.
"Therefore God must predestine." - Exclusive membership pala ng mga predestined. Paano kang magiging member? Ginawa ka nang member ng Diyos since the beginning of time. Puwede ba akong mag-member bukas? E di hindi.
"Some are elected into salvation, others are not." - E di exclusive club nga.
"Jesus died only for the elect." - And if you are not part of the special group of the elect, kahit ano gawin mo, puwera ka na nga.
"To the elect, God sends an internal call." - If you are not part of the elect exclusive club, meron bang internal call? E di wala.
"You cannot lose your salvation." - Sino daw ang "you"? Kanina pa sinasabing yung elect lang, hindi lahat. E di yung member ng special, exclusive group.
=================================
The Calvinists try to sugarcoat it, but their doctrine is clear. Only the elect will be saved. The elect were chosen by God from the beginning of time.
Mabuti pa ang INC, sila lang ang maliligtas, pero umanib ka, maliligtas ka rin. Sa Calvinism, pag hindi ka kasama sa elect since the beginning of time, wala ka nang pag-asa kahit umanib ka pa.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 05:43 PM
Meron.
Wala ngang letra-por-letra, pero meron sa kahulugan.
"God must predestine." - Exclusive membership pala. Paano kang magiging member? Ginawa ka nang member ng Diyos since the beginning of time. Puwede ba akong mag-member bukas? E di hindi.
"Some are elected into salvation, others are not." - E di exclusive club nga.
"Jesus died only for the elect." - And if you are not part of the special group, kahit ano gawin mo, puwera ka na nga.
"To the elect, God sends an internal call." - If you are not part of the elect exclusive club, meron bang internal call? E di wala.
"You cannot lose your salvation." - Sino daw ang "you"? Kanina pa sinasabing yung elect lang, hindi lahat. E di yung member ng special, exclusive group.
=================================
The Calvinists try to sugarcoat it, but their doctrine is clear. Only the elect will be saved. The elect were chosen by God from the beginning of time.
Mabuti pa ang INC, sila lang ang maliligtas, pero umanib ka, maliligtas ka rin. Sa Calvinism, pag hindi ka kasama sa elect since the beginning of time, wala ka nang pag-asa kahit umanib ka pa.
this is pure religion based explanation..
kung gusto mo ng exclusive ito yun:
Matthew 1:21New International Version (NIV)
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins.”
John 10:25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
eto muna for now
Post by: luis on Aug 12, 2015 at 05:50 PM
my definition of Salvation is going to heaven.
basta marunong kang makipagkapwa (umintindi, malasakit, magshare, etc., context is encompassing) pwede kang makapunta sa heaven.
;D
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:01 PM
2 Tim 2:19
New International Version
Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."
New Living Translation
But God's truth stands firm like a foundation stone with this inscription: "The LORD knows those who are his," and "All who belong to the LORD must turn away from evil."
English Standard Version
But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
New American Standard Bible
Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and, "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness."
King James Bible
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:15 PM
this is pure religion based explanation..
Of course it's religion-based. I was discussing Calvinism, not the bible.
this is pure religion based explanation..
kung gusto mo ng exclusive ito yun:
Matthew 1:21New International Version (NIV)
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins.”
That's right. Christ will save His people.
But how do you become a member of Christ's people?
Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31)
Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. (Mt. 16:24)
You become a part of Christ's people not by predestination, but by your own action (you should believe, you should deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Him).
John 10:25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Tama. They are not His sheep because they refuse to believe, not because they were predestined to be goats.
Is being Christ's sheep an unchangeable condition, or do we become Christ's sheep by our own actions?
Continue the chapter to John 10:37-38:
37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
In the prior verses, Jesus said only the sheep believe. But in these verses, Jesus is encouraging the non-sheep to believe.
Why encourage them to believe, if being sheep is a predestined, unchangeable condition?
It is clear that being sheep is accomplished by believing, not by pre-ordained condition.
eto muna for now
Ilabas mo na sir yung Rom. 8:29-30, para mas interesting:
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
;)
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:17 PM
exclusive.. continuation:
2 Tim 2:19
New International Version
Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."
Tama. The Lord knows who are His.
How did those people become "His"? By their own actions, not by predestination.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:20 PM
Tama. The Lord knows who are His.
How did those people become "His"? By their own actions, not by predestination.
Romans 9:6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”b8In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”c
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”f
16It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
Electtion sir..
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:37 PM
Those verses are not about predestination in salvation; they are about the birthright of the older son.
Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past as a nation, not individual salvation.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:49 PM
Those verses are not about predestination in salvation; they are about the birthright of the older son.
Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past as a nation, not individual salvation.
please read romans 9 carefully..
God is the one who determines or call His people..
Romans 9:25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”i
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:52 PM
Acts 13:48
New International Version
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
New Living Translation
When the Gentiles heard this, they were very glad and thanked the Lord for his message; and all who were chosen for eternal life became believers.
English Standard Version
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
New American Standard Bible
When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
King James Bible
And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 06:58 PM
Quote
That's right. Christ will save His people.
But how do you become a member of Christ's people?
Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31)
Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. (Mt. 16:24)
You become a part of Christ's people not by predestination, but by your own action (you should believe, you should deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow Him).
The truth is that people are choosen and presdestined:
Eph 1:Praise for Spiritual Blessings in Christ
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5heb predestined us for adoption to sonshipc through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9hed made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11In him we were also chosen,e having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.
and they are called according to God's purpose:
Romans 8:28
New International Version
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
New Living Translation
And we know that God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them.
English Standard Version
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
New American Standard Bible
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.
King James Bible
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:09 PM
even the Gentiles are ordained to or appointed for eternal life:
Acts 13:48
New International Version
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
The original word for "appointed" is "tetagmenoi," which means to "prepare themselves."
... and all who prepared themselves for eternal life believed.
It does not mean that they were predestined to eternal life.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:12 PM
The original word for "appointed" is "tetagmenoi," which means to "prepare themselves."
... and all who prepared themselves for eternal life believed.
It does not mean that they were predestined to eternal life.
τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi) — 1 Occurrence
Acts 13:48 V-RPM/P-NMP
GRK: ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν
NAS: as had been appointed to eternal
KJV: as many as were ordained to eternal
INT: as many as were appointed to life
Appointed sir.. http://biblehub.com/greek/tetagmenoi_5021.htm
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:14 PM
Romans 8:28
New International Version
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Tama.
Those who love Him have been called. No predestination.
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:15 PM
τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi) — 1 Occurrence
Acts 13:48 V-RPM/P-NMP
GRK: ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν
NAS: as had been appointed to eternal
KJV: as many as were ordained to eternal
INT: as many as were appointed to life
Appointed sir.. http://biblehub.com/greek/tetagmenoi_5021.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/tetagmenoi_5021.htm)
Those are the different bible versions.
Where is the definition of tetagmenoi?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:19 PM
Tama.
Those who love Him have been called. No predestination.
Siguro basahin mo yung book of Romans at Ephesians from first to the last chapter.. para maintindihan mo yung predestination na tinatawag..
work based salvation yung in-insist mo.. inde grace based salavation..
Post by: pTrader on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:22 PM
Those are the different bible versions.
Where is the definition of tetagmenoi?
Para makatulog ka:
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The people who were not Jews were pleased with what they heard and praised the Lord's word. Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed.
at isang tanong:
Sino yung nag prepared sa kanila?
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:25 PM
Para makatulog ka:
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The people who were not Jews were pleased with what they heard and praised the Lord's word. Everyone who had been prepared for everlasting life believed.
Still a bible version.
Where is the definition? Mahirap i-google?
The root word is tasso. If tasso becomes the middle voice tetagmenoi, what would it mean?
Post by: barrister on Aug 12, 2015 at 07:46 PM
please read romans 9 carefully..
God is the one who determines or call His people..
Romans 9:25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”i
Tama. God is the one who determines.
The Israelites thought they were predestined to salvation simply because they were descendants of Abraham.
Romans 9 teaches that their notion of predestination was wrong, because God will choose whom He wants. Therefore, God has a right to reject Israel if He wants.
That's why Esau was firstborn, yet Jacob was elected, because God is not limited to any rules of heredity. God is sovereign and will choose whom he wants.
Jacob was elected to go to heaven?
No. Jacob's line was elected as the ascendant of Jesus. It is about the role of Israel as a nation in God's plan, not about individual salvation.
Romans 9 misinterpreted to support predestination -- that's Calvinism.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 12, 2015 at 08:55 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 13, 2015 at 09:46 AM
11Sapagka't ang mga anak nang hindi pa ipinanganganak, at hindi pa nagsisigawa ng anomang mabuti o masama, upang ang layon ng Dios ay mamalagi alinsunod sa pagkahirang, na hindi sa mga gawa, kundi doon sa tumatawag
Quote
6Datapuwa't hindi sa ang salita ng Dios ay nauwi sa wala. Sapagka't hindi ang lahat ng buhat sa Israel ay mga taga Israel: 7Ni sapagka't sila'y binhi ni Abraham, ay mga anak na silang lahat: kundi, Kay Isaac tatawagin ang iyong binhi. 8Sa makatuwid, ay hindi mga anak sa laman ang mga anak ng Dios: kundi ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi. 9Sapagka't ito ang salita ng pangako, Ayon sa panahong ito'y paririto ako, at magkakaroon si Sara ng isang anak na lalake. 10At hindi lamang gayon; kundi nang maipaglihi na ni Rebeca sa pamamagitan ng isa, ito nga'y ng ating ama na si Isaac- 11Sapagka't ang mga anak nang hindi pa ipinanganganak, at hindi pa nagsisigawa ng anomang mabuti o masama, upang ang layon ng Dios ay mamalagi alinsunod sa pagkahirang, na hindi sa mga gawa, kundi doon sa tumatawag, 12Ay sinabi sa kaniya, Ang panganay ay maglilingkod sa bunso. 13Gaya ng nasusulat, Si Jacob ay inibig ko, datapuwa't si Esau ay aking kinapootan.
Tama. God is the one who determines.
The Israelites thought they were predestined to salvation simply because they were descendants of Abraham.
mali po ito, eto ang nasa Bibliya:
Pansinin nyo po yung salitang "kundi ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi."
7Ni sapagka't sila'y binhi ni Abraham, ay mga anak na silang lahat: kundi, Kay Isaac tatawagin ang iyong binhi. 8Sa makatuwid, ay hindi mga anak sa laman ang mga anak ng Dios: kundi ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi.
Romans 9 teaches that their notion of predestination was wrong, because God will choose whom He wants. Therefore, God has a right to reject Israel if He wants.
That's why Esau was firstborn, yet Jacob was elected, because God is not limited to any rules of heredity. God is sovereign and will choose whom he wants.
Jacob was elected to go to heaven?
No. Jacob's line was elected as the ascendant of Jesus. It is about the role of Israel as a nation in God's plan, not about individual salvation.
Romans 9 misinterpreted to support predestination -- that's Calvinism.
wala rin po ito, eto ang nasa Bibliya:
Inde pa po nai-papanganak at hindi pa po nagsisigawa nag anomang mabuti o masama yung mga hinirang.
11Sapagka't ang mga anak nang hindi pa ipinanganganak, at hindi pa nagsisigawa ng anomang mabuti o masama, upang ang layon ng Dios ay mamalagi alinsunod sa pagkahirang, na hindi sa mga gawa, kundi doon sa tumatawag,
Quote
No. Jacob's line was elected as the ascendant of Jesus. It is about the role of Israel as a nation in God's plan, not about individual salvation.
mali po ito:
Basahin po ninyo ang nasa baba, inde naman kay Jacob kundi kay Isaac
6Datapuwa't hindi sa ang salita ng Dios ay nauwi sa wala. Sapagka't hindi ang lahat ng buhat sa Israel ay mga taga Israel: 7Ni sapagka't sila'y binhi ni Abraham, ay mga anak na silang lahat: kundi, Kay Isaac tatawagin ang iyong binhi.
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 12:02 PM
Kung minsan may sarcasm din ako, but know that it's just a debating style, nothing more.
Sinisingitan talaga ng sarcasm yon to give the impression of confidence --- that you're very sure of what you're saying. Pero hindi rin puwedeng sobra ang sarcasm, because that will give the impression of desperation, which is not good for the audience's impression.
So yung konting sarcasm ko, debating techniques lang yon, it's nothing personal.
Tanungin mo si sir dpogs, may konting asaran din kami, but in the end, we agree that we will not be able to convince each other. Basta pareho kaming naniniwala sa Diyos, pareho kaming naniniwala sa bibliya. Yung differences in doctrine, those are small details.
==================================
Tagalog na po yung nasa baba. Ang Dios po ang humihirang kahit inde pa ho ipinapanganak yung tao.
11Sapagka't ang mga anak nang hindi pa ipinanganganak, at hindi pa nagsisigawa ng anomang mabuti o masama, upang ang layon ng Dios ay mamalagi alinsunod sa pagkahirang, na hindi sa mga gawa, kundi doon sa tumatawag
Ang Diyos ang humihirang kahit hindi pa pinanganganak.
Humihirang ng ano? Humihirang ng magiging lahi ng Israel.
Romans 9 shows us God's choices as to the forefathers or "patriarchs" of the nation Israel --- Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The traditional choice should have been Ishmael, yet God chose Isaac to receive the blessing of Abraham, to become the patriarch of the chosen nation from which Jesus would come.
Esau the firstborn should have been the traditional choice, yet God chose Jacob over Esau to continue the family line to Jesus.
In both of these cases, God chose the second-born over the firstborn. Why was Jacob given the right? Because of what Jacob had done? No, because God is sovereign and will choose whom he wants.
mali po ito, eto ang nasa Bibliya:
Pansinin nyo po yung salitang "kundi ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi."
7Ni sapagka't sila'y binhi ni Abraham, ay mga anak na silang lahat: kundi, Kay Isaac tatawagin ang iyong binhi. 8Sa makatuwid, ay hindi mga anak sa laman ang mga anak ng Dios: kundi ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi.
Pansinin din ang salitang "binhi."
Ano daw yung binhi? E di binhi ng lahing israel.
Kay Isaac tatawagin ang iyong binhi. --- Meaning, hindi kay Ishmael, kahit panganay si Ishmael.
8Sa makatuwid, ay hindi mga anak sa laman ang mga anak ng Dios: kundi ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi. --- Si Isaac na hindi panganay ang pinili ng Diyos, kasi hindi batay sa lahi ng laman ang mga anak ng Diyos.
E di hindi elect sa langit yan. Ang sinasabing elect ay yung elect na magiging lahi ng Israel.
Lahi ng ligtas sa langit? Hindi. Lahi ng pagmumulan ni Hesus na tagapagligtas. Kung ligtas na, bakit kailangan pa ng darating na tagapagligtas?
Pag member ka ba ng lahing Israel, siguradong ligtas ka na? Hindi.
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. (Rom. 9:30-32)
Kita mo na. Israel was the chosen nation -- the elect. Yet they stumbled and did not attain their goal. The Gentiles, who were not part of the Israel nation, obtained righteousness by faith.
That's the point of Isaac and Jacob.
Dapat si Ishmael, but God chose Isaac. Dapat si Esau, but God chose Jacob.
Jacob was chosen over Esau before he was born. Chosen, yes. But chosen for what?
Not chosen for eternal salvation or damnation, but chosen in the plan of the Messianic and Israelite blood lines.
===================================
Next, I will discuss the entire Romans 9-11, so that the Calvinist misinterpretation will stand out even more clearly.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 13, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Sir pTrader, I know that we will never agree on this issue, so just treat this discussion as a presentation of our respective beliefs for the benefit of those interested in learning about the two sides.
Kung minsan may sarcasm din ako, but know that it's just a debating style, nothing more.
Sinisingitan talaga ng sarcasm yon to give the impression of confidence --- that you're very sure of what you're saying. Pero hindi rin puwedeng sobra ang sarcasm, because that will give the impression of desperation, which is not good for the audience's impression.
So yung konting sarcasm ko, debating techniques lang yon, it's nothing personal.
Tanungin mo si sir dpogs, may konting asaran din kami, but in the end, we agree that we will not be able to convince each other. Basta pareho kaming naniniwala sa Diyos, pareho kaming naniniwala sa bibliya. Yung differences in doctrine, those are small details.
==================================
Ang Diyos ang humihirang kahit hindi pa pinanganganak.
Humihirang ng ano? Humihirang ng magiging lahi ng Israel.
Romans 9 shows us God's choices as to the forefathers or "patriarchs" of the nation Israel --- Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The traditional choice should have been Ishmael, yet God chose Isaac to receive the blessing of Abraham, to become the patriarch of the chosen nation from which Jesus would come.
Esau the firstborn should have been the traditional choice, yet God chose Jacob over Esau to continue the family line to Jesus.
In both of these cases, God chose the second-born over the firstborn. Why was Jacob given the right? Because of what Jacob had done? No, because God is sovereign and will choose whom he wants.
Pansinin din ang salitang "binhi."
Ano daw yung binhi? E di binhi ng lahing israel.
Kay Isaac tatawagin ang iyong binhi. --- Meaning, hindi kay Ishmael, kahit panganay si Ishmael.
8Sa makatuwid, ay hindi mga anak sa laman ang mga anak ng Dios: kundi ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi. --- Si Isaac na hindi panganay ang pinili ng Diyos, kasi hindi batay sa lahi ng laman ang mga anak ng Diyos.
E di hindi elect sa langit yan. Ang sinasabing elect ay yung elect na magiging lahi ng Israel.
Lahi ng ligtas sa langit? Hindi. Lahi ng pagmumulan ni Hesus na tagapagligtas. Kung ligtas na, bakit kailangan pa ng darating na tagapagligtas?
Pag member ka ba ng lahing Israel, siguradong ligtas ka na? Hindi.
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. (Rom. 9:30-32)
Kita mo na. Israel was the chosen nation -- the elect. Yet they stumbled and did not attain their goal. The Gentiles, who were not part of the Israel nation, obtained righteousness by faith.
That's the point of Isaac and Jacob.
Dapat si Ishmael, but God chose Isaac. Dapat si Esau, but God chose Jacob.
Jacob was chosen over Esau before he was born. Chosen, yes. But chosen for what?
Not chosen for eternal salvation or damnation, but chosen in the plan of the Messianic and Israelite blood lines.
===================================
Next, I will discuss the entire Romans 9-11, so that the Calvinist misinterpretation will stand out even more clearly.
Sir ok lang, I do respect you sir.. exposition itong ginagawa natin, we can learn from each other.. sa ganitong discussion may both side, bahala na rin yung bumabasa at tumimbang ng pinag-uusapan...
Gaya ng nasabi:
The LORD works out everything to its proper end-- even the wicked for a day of disaster.
there is a proper end also in this discussion..
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 12:38 PM
Google muna ako para sa Romans 9-11 presentation ko. Medyo pahinga, pinagod mo ko sir sa posts mo kahapon, hindi ako makahabol sa sunod-sunod na sitas... :(
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 02:05 PM
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=NIV)
Romans 9 is about Israel's past; 10, its present (during the time of Paul); 11, its future.
Chapters 1-5: The message of the Gospel is salvation from the penalty of sin.
Chapters 6-8: Christ's death and resurrection gives us salvation from sin.
Most of the Jews rejected the gospel. Why? Because the implication is that if all are saved by faith in Christ even if they are not part of the Israel nation, then it means God turned His back on His promise to Israel.
Israel is God's chosen people over all others. Now God also chooses others?
That's the topic of Romans 9-11.
=================================
Let's start with Romans 9:
Verses 1-5: Paul is saddened for his fellow Jews. Israel is God's chosen nation, pero parang hindi na "chosen" ngayon. What happened to God's word?
Verses 6-9:
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
Clearly, the topic is about descendants and bloodlines.
Pero hindi daw basta lahi iyon. As proof, Paul cites Isaac and Jacob.
8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom. 9:8-13)
Verses 8-9 - the first example. Kung bloodline lang ang tinitignan, bakit daw si Isaac ang pinili na pupuntahan ng bloodline, samantalang hindi naman siya ang panganay ni Abraham?
Hindi physical na lahi ang tinitignan, kundi yung children of the promise.
Bakit si Isaac? Kasi siya ang child of promise.
Verses 10-12 - the second example --- bakit si Esau, firstborn, pero si Jacob na second-born ang pinili?
Hindi dahil may ginawang masama si Esau kaya nawalan ng birthright. Pinili ng Diyos si Jacob even before he was born --- that is, not because Jacob did anything that deserved a reward. Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls.
Hindi raw dumedepende sa ginawa ni Jacob. Dumedepende yon sa gusto ng Diyos
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. (Rom. 9:14-16)
It depends on God's choice, not human choice.
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Rom. 9:17-24)
If God wants to show mercy on the Gentiles, you have no right to contradict God.
If God wants to call from the Jews and from the Gentiles, you have no right to contradict Him.
As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” (Rom. 9:25-26)
Israel, the chosen people. Yet God also chose the Gentiles who were not originally chosen.
That's what the verses mean. Even if the Gentiles were not the original chosen, they will still be chosen ---I will call them my people who are not my people.
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” (Rom. 9:30-33)
Why did God choose the Gentiles and reject Israel?
Because Israel pursued the law rather than righteousness; while the Gentiles obtained righteousness by faith.
Was Israel predestined to eternal salvation? No. God will choose whom he wants. As evidence, Paul pointed to Isaac and Jacob as proof that your bloodline is no guarantee.
That is the meaning of "elect." The topic is about Israel's past --- the bloodline that resulted into the nation of Israel. Jacob is proof that God can elect the second-born over the firstborn even before their birth. Elect for what? Elected to be the patriarch of the bloodline from which Jesus would be born. Not elect as predestined to eternal salvation.
If God chose Gentiles, God has the right to do that because God can choose whom he wants. But did God choose the Gentiles for no good reason other than this absolute right to choose anyone?
No. God chose the Gentiles because they chose righteousness by faith. What saved the Gentiles, predestination from the beginning of time? No. It was their faith that saved them.
What happens to the Jews now? That question is answered in the next chapters.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 13, 2015 at 03:07 PM
Here are links to Romans 9-11:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9&version=NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=NIV)
Romans 9 is about Israel's past; 10, its present (during the time of Paul); 11, its future.
Chapters 1-5: The message of the Gospel is salvation from the penalty of sin.
Chapters 6-8: Christ's death and resurrection gives us salvation from sin.
Most of the Jews rejected the gospel. Why? Because the implication is that if all are saved by faith in Christ even if they are not part of the Israel nation, then it means God turned His back on His promise to Israel.
Israel is God's chosen people over all others. Now God also chooses others?
That's the topic of Romans 9-11.
=================================
Let's start with Romans 9:
Verses 1-5: Paul is saddened for his fellow Jews. Israel is God's chosen nation, pero parang hindi na "chosen" ngayon. What happened to God's word?
Verses 6-9:
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
Clearly, the topic is about descendants and bloodlines.
Pero hindi daw basta lahi iyon. As proof, Paul cites Isaac and Jacob.
8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom. 9:8-13)
Verses 8-9 - the first example. Kung bloodline lang ang tinitignan, bakit daw si Isaac ang pinili na pupuntahan ng bloodline, samantalang hindi naman siya ang panganay ni Abraham?
Hindi physical na lahi ang tinitignan, kundi yung children of the promise.
Bakit si Isaac? Kasi siya ang child of promise.
Verses 10-12 - the second example --- bakit si Esau, firstborn, pero si Jacob na second-born ang pinili?
Hindi dahil may ginawang masama si Esau kaya nawalan ng birthright. Pinili ng Diyos si Jacob even before he was born --- that is, not because Jacob did anything that deserved a reward. Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls.
Hindi raw dumedepende sa ginawa ni Jacob. Dumedepende yon sa gusto ng Diyos
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. (Rom. 9:14-16)
It depends on God's choice, not human choice.
17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? (Rom. 9:17-24)
If God wants to show mercy on the Gentiles, you have no right to contradict God.
If God wants to call from the Jews and from the Gentiles, you have no right to contradict Him.
As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” (Rom. 9:25-26)
Israel, the chosen people. Yet God also chose the Gentiles who were not originally chosen.
That's what the verses mean. Even if the Gentiles were not the original chosen, they will still be chosen ---I will call them my people who are not my people.
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” (Rom. 9:30-33)
Why did God choose the Gentiles and reject Israel?
Because Israel pursued the law rather than righteousness; while the Gentiles obtained righteousness by faith.
Was Israel predestined to eternal salvation? No. God will choose whom he wants. As evidence, Paul pointed to Isaac and Jacob as proof that your bloodline is no guarantee.
That is the meaning of "elect." The topic is about Israel's past --- the bloodline that resulted into the nation of Israel. Jacob is proof that God can elect the second-born over the firstborn even before their birth. Elect for what? Elected to be the patriarch of the bloodline from which Jesus would be born. Not elect as predestined to eternal salvation.
If God chose Gentiles, God has the right to do that because God can choose whom he wants. But did God choose the Gentiles for no good reason other than this absolute right to choose anyone?
No. God chose the Gentiles because they chose righteousness by faith. What saved the Gentiles, predestination from the beginning of time? No. It was their faith that saved them.
What happens to the Jews now? That question is answered in the next chapters.
In other words, GOD is the one choosing people who are His. Election is not based on merit or works or bloodline. It is based on God's grace.
Election is purely God and God alone, so yung maliligtas yung mga hinirang niya.
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 05:04 PM
Can Israel still be saved? Romans 10 explains.
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Christ is the answer. Believe in Christ and you will be saved.
Only the Jews or only the Gentiles? No. It's for everyone who believes.
Only for those who were individually predestined since the beginning of time? No, it's for everyone who believes. The requirement is your faith, not your predestination.
5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Everyone can be saved.
What does the Jew have to do? Believe in Christ. What does the Gentile have to do? Believe in Christ. No difference.
Sa Calvinism, what do you have to do? Nothing. You're predestined to heaven, or you're predestined to hell. There's nothing you can do about it.
Sa Calvinism, does eveyone have a chance at salvation? No.
Calvinism believes in Limited Atonement --- Christ died to save His people from sin. And who are "His people"? Those whom God elected from the beginning of time. If you are not a member of the elect chosen since the beginning of time, you have no chance at salvation, no matter what you do.
==================================
If chapter 9 took us back to Israel's past (hereditary bloodlines), chapter 10 now ends with Israel's present. What is the condition of Israel? They are disobedient:
16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
20 And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21 But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Many Jews rejected the good news of Christ. The Gentiles have no understanding of Jewish law, yet they were given salvation.
Why were Gentiles given salvation? Because of their faith in Christ. Can the Jews still be saved? Yes, if they have faith in Christ.
Therefore, faith in Christ is the key, not predestination.
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 05:51 PM
Now we go to Israel's future.
Members of the Israelite nation still have a chance:
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Originally, God's people were the Israelite nation. God foreknew Israel as the nation that was to be part of His plan for salvation, but the individual Israelites were not predestined to heaven.
But they were disobedient, so they were cut off.
Cut off, because they were not predestined to eternal salvation. If God's people were predestined to eternal salvation, then they could not have been cut off. But they were cut off because of their disobedience.
Therefore, it is their obedience that is the basis for God's choice, not predestination. Otherwise, they should not have been cut off no matter what they did.
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:
“God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”
9 And David says: “May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. 10 May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever.”
Because of their disobedience, God blinded them spiritually so that they will fail to see the truth of the good news of salvation in Christ.
Yet there is still hope for Israel. But before that, Paul first explains how Israel's transgression became an advantage to the Gentiles:
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
The Jews are like branches broken off, while the Gentiles are like branches grafted in:
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
If salvation is predetermined, why this breaking off and grafting in? If you are predestined to salvation, you are part of the group; if you are predestined to hell, you were never part of the group.
Yet here, you can be broken off, you can be grafted in. Broken off because of unbelief; grafted in by faith.
Continuing the verses, you will see that you can be grafted in, then cut off again:
22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.
Kindness to you, provided that you continue in His kindness. May condition pala. Hindi predestined to salvation no matter what you do, kailangan you must continue in His kindness.
Otherwise, you also will be cut off. Kita mo, e di hindi predestination, kasi may kailangang gawin. Continue in His kindness, you remain grafted. If not, you will be cut off.
23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
Ayun. Grafted in na naman ang mga Jews. Akala ko ba predestination, bakit cut off, then grafted in ulit.
You get the point.
You are saved by your faith. You are not saved by predestination since the beginning of time.
==================================
And now for the final portions of the chapter --- Israel's future.
Israel will be saved:
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Israel was elect as a nation, then was cut off. Why cut off? Because of of disobedience, not predestination.
Now that they are cut off, the Jews can receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to Gentiles.
How are Gentiles saved? By their faith, not by predestination. How will the Jews be saved in the time of the Gentiles? By faith, not by predestination.
===================================
The chapter ends with a Doxology (praise to God):
33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?” 36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 13, 2015 at 06:09 PM
Ang haba ah.. sige mag-aaral muna ako regarding Romans 10 and 11
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 06:14 PM
Yung copy and paste verses lang naman ang nakahaba.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 13, 2015 at 07:17 PM
Romans 10 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010)
Can Israel still be saved? Romans 10 explains.
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Christ is the answer. Believe in Christ and you will be saved.
Only the Jews or only the Gentiles? No. It's for everyone who believes.
Only for those who were individually predestined since the beginning of time? No, it's for everyone who believes. The requirement is your faith, not your predestination.
5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Everyone can be saved.
What does the Jew have to do? Believe in Christ. What does the Gentile have to do? Believe in Christ. No difference.
Sa Calvinism, what do you have to do? Nothing. You're predestined to heaven, or you're predestined to hell. There's nothing you can do about it.
Sa Calvinism, does eveyone have a chance at salvation? No.
Calvinism believes in Limited Atonement --- Christ died to save His people from sin. And who are "His people"? Those whom God elected from the beginning of time. If you are not a member of the elect chosen since the beginning of time, you have no chance at salvation, no matter what you do.
==================================
If chapter 9 took us back to Israel's past (hereditary bloodlines), chapter 10 now ends with Israel's present. What is the condition of Israel? They are disobedient:
16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
19 Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding.”
20 And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”
21 But concerning Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
Many Jews rejected the good news of Christ. The Gentiles have no understanding of Jewish law, yet they were given salvation.
Why were Gentiles given salvation? Because of their faith in Christ. Can the Jews still be saved? Yes, if they have faith in Christ.
Therefore, faith in Christ is the key, not predestination.
Balkan natin yung Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Yung pangako po ay para sa children of the promise and are regarded as descendants ni Abraham..
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles
And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory
- prepared na pala yung vessels of His Mercy
- sino ba yung vessels of mercy? yung tinawag ng Dios mula sa mga Hudyo at Hentil (see verse 24 above)
Bottomline is, God prepared beforehand the vessels of mercy whom he called.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 13, 2015 at 08:26 PM
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 13, 2015 at 09:23 PM
May I ask, if there are already predestined people who'll be saved, then what's the point of us being here? What's the point of them being here? Whom did Jesus die for? Why did he even come here in the first place?ang pagkakaalam ko, meron mga tao na predestined to be saved (they were mentioned in revelations, some jew tribes I think. meron pa nga bilang kung ilan sila). Jesus died for the non jew or gentiles if I'm not mistaken
Post by: majoe on Aug 13, 2015 at 09:47 PM
That is why I love what God has done, he put boundaries..
Acts 17:26
English Standard Version
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
parang di naman boundaries ng free will ibig sabihin dyan. "place" ang nakasulat at di "will".
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 10:39 PM
ang pagkakaalam ko, meron mga tao na predestined to be saved (they were mentioned in revelations, some jew tribes I think. meron pa nga bilang kung ilan sila). Jesus died for the non jew or gentiles if I'm not mistaken
That's Revelation 7:4, the 144,000 of Israel ---
4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:
The predestination of the 144,000 is a Jehovah's Witness doctrine, not a Calvinist doctrine. JWs believe that only 144,000 will enter heaven, called the heavenly hope.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong (alam n'yo na kung bakit wala akong inaniban na sekta, puro mali kasi... ;) )
The 144,000 are the Jews who will be sealed, meaning they will be given special protection from the Antichrist during the tribulation period. The tribulation period is an event that will come in the future, foretold in Revelation.
Post by: barrister on Aug 13, 2015 at 11:00 PM
Balkan natin yung Romans 9
6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Yung pangako po ay para sa children of the promise and are regarded as descendants ni Abraham..
Tama. Yung children of the promise ang considered descendants ni Abraham.
Sino ba yung dapat na considered descendants ni Abraham? Si Ishmael. Bakit? Siya yung panganay ni Abraham.
Pero sino ang gusto ng Diyos na considered descendants ni Abraham? Si Isaac na second-born --- the child of the promise.
If Isaac is the child of the promise, then Isaac and the descendants of Isaac are the children of the promise. They are considered the descendants of Abraham.
Di ba ito yung sabi ko:
Those verses are not about predestination in salvation; they are about the birthright of the older son.
Romans 9 refers to Israel’s past as a nation, not individual salvation.
=================================
Why is Isaac considered the child of the promise? Because a son was promised to Sarah when she was already 90 years old:
8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” (Rom. 9:8-9)
==================================
The Old Testament story:
One day, three men came to Abraham and Sarah. ---
9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him. “There, in the tent,” he said.
10 Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”
Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. ...
14 Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.” (Gen. 18:9-11, 14)
The son was named "Isaac." ---
Now the Lord was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah what he had promised. 2 Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. 3 Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sarah bore him. (Gen. 21:1-3)
==================================
Nasaan ang predestination to heaven diyan? Wala na naman.
Post by: barrister on Aug 14, 2015 at 12:39 AM
Balkan natin yung Romans 9
...
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles
And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory
- prepared na pala yung vessels of His Mercy
- sino ba yung vessels of mercy? yung tinawag ng Dios mula sa mga Hudyo at Hentil (see verse 24 above)
Bottomline is, God prepared beforehand the vessels of mercy whom he called.
Understand the context.
- God is sovereign. He can do what He wants, and we have no right to complain.
- In the same way that the potter has the right to make any kind of vessel that he wants.
- The vessel has no right to complain to the potter.
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (Rom. 9:20-21)
The vessel cannot complain to the potter. If the vessel is bad, the potter can destroy it.
But here's the point that you missed --- the vessel has the ability to repent.
If the vessel is bad, yet changes and turns out good later, the potter will reconsider and will not destroy it.
Can the vessel change so that the potter will reconsider? Yes. That's Jeremiah 18, with the same analogy of the potter ---
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jer. 18:1-10)
In Jeremiah 18, we see that the potter can reconsider if he sees that the vessel changes or repents.
Bearing in mind that the vessels have the free will to change, and the potter can destroy the vessel that was originally good but became bad, or form into another vessel the one that became good, let's continue to Romans 9:22 onwards ---
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Rom. 9:22-24)
In verse 22 --- The vessels of wrath. The potter endured with much patience, wating for the vessels to change into good vessels. If the vessels change into good, the potter will not destroy them.
In verse 23 --- The vessels of mercy. The potter made good vessels, but if the vessels become bad, the potter will destroy them.
The vessel can change from bad into good, and the potter will reconsider and will not destroy it.
That's not predestination, that's free will.
Final evidence that the vessel has the free will to change itself ---
20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. (Rom. 9:20-21)
Clearly, the vessel can change itself. Cleanse yourself from the dishonorable, and you become a good vessel, set apart as holy.
That's free will. Not predestination.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:04 AM
The salvation i received is not because of me, God found me. It is all by the grace of God, not of myself, not of my own works, not my own choice, the Holy Spirit touched my heart (wicked of all things) unto repentance and lead me to faith, all by the grace of God. There is nothing to boast since it is not I but God. Glory be to God.
Post by: panzimus on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:11 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:27 AM
^so sir dpogs, in relation to what you said, it's like kung ang isang tao ay napakasama nya but he was touched by the Holy Spirit, salvation is his. just as same sa tao naman na napaka buti but hindi siya touched by the Holy Spirit, salvation is not his?
"But without faith it is impossible to please him," Heb.11:6 KJV
God requires not our works, since some of us will just probably boast on how good they are, on how much impact they have for the goodness of this world, and if we depend our salvation in our good works, whose glory is it?
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. I Cor.1:27-31 KJV
Post by: panzimus on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:33 AM
"But without faith it is impossible to please him," Heb.11:6 KJV
God requires not our works, since some of us will just probably boast on how good they are, on how much impact they have for the goodness of this world, and if we depend our salvation in our good works, whose glory is it?
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. I Cor.1:27-31 KJV
what if granted both of them may faith?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 02:22 AM
what if granted both of them may faith?
if it is genuine faith, in that case, both of them pleased God, and the Glory must be unto God not our self and God will reward them based on their work.
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Rev.22:12 KJV
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 14, 2015 at 06:12 AM
ang pagkakaalam ko, meron mga tao na predestined to be saved (they were mentioned in revelations, some jew tribes I think. meron pa nga bilang kung ilan sila). Jesus died for the non jew or gentiles if I'm not mistaken
The question is, why would he need to die if people are already predestined?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 06:54 AM
The question is, why would he need to die if people are already predestined?
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: Col.1:22 KJV
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb.9:28 KJV
To become perfect sacrifice for our sins.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 14, 2015 at 08:11 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 08:25 AM
Iba naman yang sagot mo e. I was asking kung may predestined na, at exclusive ito, bakit kailangan pang mamatay ni Jesus.
To become perfect sacrifice for our sins.
...and without shedding of blood is no remission. Heb.9:22 KJV
Jesus had to die because He is the only one qualified to be a perfect lamb, to be a sacrificed, He is the only one who can pay the penalty of our sins.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 14, 2015 at 08:34 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 08:38 AM
Bakit nga kailangan pang bayaran? Kung hindi binayaran, maliligtas ba yung predestined?
"... and without shedding of blood is no remission." Heb.9:22 KJV
"...and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. " Heb.9:22 NIV
No souls will be forgiven if Jesus did not die in the cross.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 14, 2015 at 08:40 AM
There's really no way to join the predestined club? If you're in, you can't go out? (I had to ask pa talaga, e wala nga palang free will :) )
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 09:01 AM
Okay, you believe that kahit may predestined na, required pa rin yung sacrifice ni Jesus. Got that.
There's really no way to join the predestined club? If you're in, you can't go out? (I had to ask pa talaga, e wala nga palang free will :) )
The Bible said... believe and you will be saved.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 14, 2015 at 10:26 AM
Tama. Yung children of the promise ang considered descendants ni Abraham.
Sino ba yung dapat na considered descendants ni Abraham? Si Ishmael. Bakit? Siya yung panganay ni Abraham.
Pero sino ang gusto ng Diyos na considered descendants ni Abraham? Si Isaac na second-born --- the child of the promise.
If Isaac is the child of the promise, then Isaac and the descendants of Isaac are the children of the promise. They are considered the descendants of Abraham.
Di ba ito yung sabi ko:
=================================
Why is Isaac considered the child of the promise? Because a son was promised to Sarah when she was already 90 years old:
8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” (Rom. 9:8-9)
==================================
The Old Testament story:
One day, three men came to Abraham and Sarah. ---
9 “Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him. “There, in the tent,” he said.
10 Then one of them said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.”
Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11 Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. ...
14 Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.” (Gen. 18:9-11, 14)
The son was named "Isaac." ---
Now the Lord was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah what he had promised. 2 Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. 3 Abraham gave the name Isaac to the son Sarah bore him. (Gen. 21:1-3)
==================================
Nasaan ang predestination to heaven diyan? Wala na naman.
Sino ba daw yung Children of Promise...
Gal 3:7Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”d9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It is not a matter of Ishmael, Isaac, Sarah, etc that you are discussing but about the promise of God to Abraham "“All nations will be blessed through you.”
9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 14, 2015 at 10:59 AM
The question is, why would he need to die if people are already predestined?not all are predestined. several Jews lang ang predestined. hindi rin puede ng sabihin na ung mga tumanggap kay Jesus lang ang maliligtas. you see God is a good, just and fair God
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 14, 2015 at 11:03 AM
not all are predestined. several Jews lang ang predestined
My previous question has been answered. Regarding this naman, I am assuming different religion ito, the 144000 Jews do not need Jesus to be saved?
Post by: jhelenz on Aug 14, 2015 at 11:19 AM
My previous question has been answered. Regarding this naman, I am assuming different religion ito, the 144000 Jews do not need Jesus to be saved?why stop there? ask mo na din about the people who died without hearing the word of God, mentally incapacity, etc
Post by: dpogs on Aug 14, 2015 at 12:37 PM
why stop there? ask mo na din about the people who died without hearing the word of God, mentally incapacity, etc
Sa mga bata once na narating nila ang age of accountqbility, alam na nila kung ano ang tama at mali, aware sila may nagawa silang kasalanan, responsible na sila sa kanilang kasalanan.
Sa mga taong may mental incapacity since birth di pa nila nararating ang age of accountability.
We are not going to hell not because we didnt heard the Word of God, nor because we didnt accept Jesus, nor because we didnt believe in God, we are going to hell because of our sins, because we are sinners.
Post by: barrister on Aug 14, 2015 at 12:49 PM
Sino ba daw yung Children of Promise...
Gal 3:7Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”d9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
It is not a matter of Ishmael, Isaac, Sarah, etc that you are discussing but about the promise of God to Abraham "“All nations will be blessed through you.”
9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
No, that's not right. Both groups are called children of the promise. One is physical, the other is spiritual.
I'm surprised that you failed to comprehend this, because this is an easy biblical concept. Very basic, not complicated at all.
===================================
Here are the relevant biblical principles:
- In the bible, there are two kinds of Jews --- The physical Jews and the spiritual Jews.
- The physical Jews are the literal Jews --- The physical nation of Israel.
- The spiritual Jews are figurative Jews --- The Gentiles who believe in Christ.
==================================
1. The physical Jews are the nation of Israel. They are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Isaac is the child of promise, because he was promised to Sarah. Isaac and his descendants are called the children of promise. What kind of children of promise? Physical.
Our topic was Romans 9, and Romans 9 was talking about the bloodline of Israel:
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” (Rom. 9:6-9)
The firstborn should be the reckoning point of descent. But here, it clarifies that Ishmael the firstborn was not considered the reckoning point.
"It is not the children of physical descent who are God's children" - It means it is not the children of Ishmael, the firstborn, who are God's children.
"On the contrary, It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." - Instead of following the tradition of firstborn determination, it was through Isaac the second-born that descent was determined.
Isaac and his offspring are the children of promise. This is still physical, since the bloodlines of heredity are physically present from Isaac to his descendants. So they are the physical "children of the promise."
Verse 9 --- "For this was how the promise was stated: At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." --- Sarah's son Isaac and his descendants are the children of the promise. Why? Because Isaac was promised to Sarah in her old age.
The subject is still about physical bloodlines, therefore they are physical children of the promise. Romans 9:9 stated it very clearly. I don't see how it can be any clearer.
2. The spiritual Jews are the Gentile Christians.
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal. 4:21-28)
First, the physical children of promise --- Isaac and his descendants. Now, the spiritual children of promise --- the Gentile Christians.
Verse 28 --- Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.
The Gentile Christians are not the original, physical children of promise. They are the spiritual children of promise.
The Gentile Christians cannot be physical descendants because they do not belong to the proper bloodline. That's why it says they are only "like Isaac."
===================================
Further proof of the distincton between the physical Jews and the spiritual Jews:
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (Rom. 2:28)
Even if you are not physically a member of the Israelite bloodline, you can be a Jew spiritually if you are a Jew inwardly.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:05 PM
No, that's not right. Both groups are called children of the promise. One is physical, the other is spiritual.
I'm surprised that you failed to comprehend this, because this is an easy biblical concept. Very basic, not complicated at all.
===================================
Here are the relevant biblical principles:
- In the bible, there are two kinds of Jews --- The physical Jews and the spiritual Jews.
- The physical Jews are the literal Jews --- The physical nation of Israel.
- The spiritual Jews are figurative Jews --- The Gentiles who believe in Christ.
==================================
1. The physical Jews are the nation of Israel. They are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Isaac is the child of promise, because he was promised to Sarah. Isaac and his descendants are called the children of promise. What kind of children of promise? Physical.
Our topic was Romans 9, and Romans 9 was talking about the bloodline of Israel:
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.” (Rom. 9:6-9)
The firstborn should be the reckoning point of descent. But here, it clarifies that Ishmael the firstborn was not considered the reckoning point.
"It is not the children of physical descent who are God's children" - It means it is not the children of Ishmael, the firstborn, who are God's children.
"On the contrary, It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." - Instead of following the tradition of firstborn determination, it was through Isaac the second-born that descent was determined.
Isaac and his offspring are the children of promise. This is still physical, since the bloodlines of heredity are physically present from Isaac to his descendants. So they are the physical "children of the promise."
Verse 9 --- "For this was how the promise was stated: At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." --- Sarah's son Isaac and his descendants are the children of the promise. Why? Because Isaac was promised to Sarah in her old age.
The subject is still about physical bloodlines, therefore they are physical children of the promise. Romans 9:9 stated it very clearly. I don't see how it can be any clearer.
2. The spiritual Jews are the Gentile Christians.
21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.
24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
“Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal. 4:21-28)
First, the physical children of promise --- Isaac and his descendants. Now, the spiritual children of promise --- the Gentile Christians.
Verse 28 --- Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.
The Gentile Christians are not the original, physical children of promise. They are the spiritual children of promise.
The Gentile Christians cannot be physical descendants because they do not belong to the proper bloodline. That's why it says they are only "like Isaac."
===================================
Further proof of the distincton between the physical Jews and the spiritual Jews:
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God. (Rom. 2:28)
Even if you are not physically a member of the Israelite bloodline, you can be a Jew spiritually if you are a Jew inwardly.
You might be missing this:
For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:12 PM
wala niyan sir.. basahin mo ito:
Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Post by: barrister on Aug 14, 2015 at 01:12 PM
You might be missing this:
For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
Tama yan.
Not because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. Ishmael is the seed of Abraham as the firstborn, yet it is the second-born Isaac who is considered the seed.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:6-8)
Did I miss that? I don't think so.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 14, 2015 at 02:00 PM
Tama yan.
Not because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. Ishmael is the seed of Abraham as the firstborn, yet it is the second-born Isaac which is considerd the seed.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:6-8)
Did I miss that? I don't think so.
ibig sabihin mo walang maliligtas sa mga descendant ni Ishmael.. eh ang pangao inde lamang mula sa Hudyo ganun sa mga Hentil
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 14, 2015 at 04:31 PM
Iba naman yang sagot mo e. I was asking kung may predestined na, at exclusive ito, bakit kailangan pang mamatay ni Jesus.
From the predestination point of view, kasama sa predestination din yun death of Jesus.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 14, 2015 at 04:44 PM
Hebrew 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 14, 2015 at 07:08 PM
Talaga namang may two kinds of Jews, those Jews who believe in Christ and those Jews who do not believe in Christ.
Quote
Here are the relevant biblical principles:
- In the bible, there are two kinds of Jews --- The physical Jews and the spiritual Jews.
- The physical Jews are the literal Jews --- The physical nation of Israel.
- The spiritual Jews are figurative Jews --- The Gentiles who believe in Christ.
The Jews who believe/faith in Christ are Jews
The Gentile who believe/faith in Christ are Gentiles
Pero sila po ay parehong Abraham's seed and heirs accoding to the promise.
Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
saan kaya nila pinulot ang physical at spritual Jews na teaching.. I wonder.. hmmm
******
Balikan at isa isahin natin yung mga sitas - Romans 9
Tama yan.
Not because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. Ishmael is the seed of Abraham as the firstborn, yet it is the second-born Isaac which is considerd the seed.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Maliwanag na inde tinitake for consideration yung buong Israel
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Sinasabe na magmumula kay Isaac pertaining to seed of Abraham tatawagin yung hinirang ng Dios.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:6-8)[/color][/i]
Inde pala ibinibilang yung angkan kundi anak ng pangako.
Did I miss that? I don't think so.
Inde pala ibinibilang yung angkan kundi anak ng pangako.
Quote
9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”c
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e
So saan magagaling yung mga hinirang ng Dios mula sa bayang Israel kay Jacob.
Pero lahat ba ng bayang Israel. Hindi. Basahin po ang paunang verse uli o ang verse sa baba.
Quote
6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.
Inde ibig sabihin mula ka sa angkan ni Abraham o ni Israel, lahat sila ay pinili. May hinirang po ang Dios mula sa mga angkan ng mga ito na ibinilang ng Dios sa anak sa pangako.
Pag papatunay yung verse 8 sa baba:
Quote
8In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.
ang mga anak sa pangako'y siyang ibibilang na isang binhi
Mula kay Abraham, Isaac, Jacob at sa mga hinirang Dios mula sa angkan ni Jacob (Israel) - naka paloob yung pangako kaya po sinabing children of promise.
Yung sa taas para sa mga hinirang ng Dios mula sa angkan ni Jacob o Israel.
E paano naman yung mga Hentil, eto po basa sa baba:
Quote
3At upang maipakilala ang kayamanan ng kaniyang kaluwalhatian sa mga sisidlan ng awa, na kaniyang inihanda nang una pa sa kaluwalhatian, 24Maging sa atin na kaniya namang tinawag, hindi lamang mula sa mga Judio, kundi naman mula sa mga Gentil?
25Gaya naman ng sinasabi niya sa aklat ni Oseas, Tatawagin kong aking bayan na hindi ko dating bayan; At iniibig, na hindi dating iniibig.
26At mangyayari, na sa dakong pinagsabihan sa kanila, kayo'y hindi ko bayan, Ay diyan sila tatawaging mga anak ng Dios na buhay.
Maliwanag na may tinawag ang Dios mula sa mga Hentil at inaring Kanyang bayan o mga anak Niya.
Maliwanag po na yung mga hinirang Dios, mula sa angkan ni Israel at mula sa mga Hentil, ang pinangakuan ng kaligtasan.
Kaya kung babasahin mo yung paunang mga salita ni Pablo sa aklat ng Romans eto ang mababasa :
7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
7Sa lahat ninyong nangasa Roma, mga iniibig ng Dios, tinawag na mangagbanal: Sumainyo nawa ang biyaya at kapayapaang mula sa Dios na ating Ama at Panginoong Jesucristo.
iniibig at tinawag
Post by: barrister on Aug 14, 2015 at 07:26 PM
physical children of promise ?? spiritual spiritual children of promise??
wala niyan sir.. basahin mo ito:
Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Madali lang intindihin yan sir.
1. Children of promise by descent: On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” (Rom. 9:6) They are children of promise because they are descendants of Isaac.
2. Children of promise by faith: 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal. 4:28) They are not descendants of Isaac, yet they are children of promise, but only "like Isaac."
One is by descent --- physical children. The other is by faith in Christ --- spiritual children.
Very easy.
Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
That is figurative, not literal.
How do we know it's figurative? Very easy.
Ang sabi, "nor is there male or female." Wala na palang lalaki at babae ngayon? Mali. Meron pa ring lalaki at babae ngayon.
Ang sabi rin, "there is neither Jew or Gentile." Wala na palang Jew or Gentile ngayon? Mali rin. Trace mo lang ang lahi, makikita mo ang Jew at Gentile. Kaya meron pa ring Jew and Gentile ngayon.
Paanong magiging tama ang sitas?
Alamin mo muna kung ano yung topic. Ito ang pinag-uusapan: "for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Yon naman pala. Kung salvation through Christ ang usapin, male or female, pareho lang may pag-asa sa kaligtasan. Kung salvation through Christ ang usapin, Jew or Gentile, pareho lang may pag-asa sa kaligtasan.
Therefore, figurative ito, hindi literal. Spiritual ito, hindi physical.
In the Old Testament, you must be part of the bloodline of Abraham --- the physical Israel.
In the New Testament, no need for bloodline, all you need is faith in Christ --- the spiritual Israel.
29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:29)
Abaraham's seed sa Old Testament. Bakit sa New Testament, Abraham's seed pa rin?
Kasi hindi na physical Abraham's seed by bloodline. Spiritual Abraham's seed na by faith in Christ.
Very easy.
====================================
How will you be saved? By faith in Christ.
Jew or Gentile, male or female, all are equal because they all have an equal chance at salvation if they have faith in Christ.
Kung predestined ka na since the beginning of time, why would you need faith in Christ? Magbulakbol ka na lang, sigurado namang ligtas ka kahit ano gawin mo.
You will be saved if you have faith in Christ. Free will yon, hindi predestination.
Nasaan ang predestination diyan? Wala na naman.
Post by: barrister on Aug 14, 2015 at 07:31 PM
ibig sabihin mo walang maliligtas sa mga descendant ni Ishmael.. eh ang pangao inde lamang mula sa Hudyo ganun sa mga Hentil
Lagi mo kasing pinipilit sir ang topic na predestination, kahit descendants lang ang pinag-uusapan.
Kahit si Ishmael ang panganay, si Isaac ang pinili.
Pinili para saan? Pinili para maging predestined to eternal salvation since the beginning of time? Hindi. Pinili para maging lahi kung saan ipanganganak si Hesus.
Lahi lang yon. Hindi predestination to eternal salvation.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 14, 2015 at 07:50 PM
Madali lang intindihin yan sir.
1. Children of promise by descent: On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” (Rom. 9:6) They are children of promise because they are descendants of Isaac.
2. Children of promise by faith: 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal. 4:21-28) They are not descendants of Isaac, but they are children of promise "like Isaac."
One is by descent --- physical children. The other is by faith in Christ --- spiritual children.
Very easy.
That is figurative, not literal.
How do we know it's figurative? Very easy.
Ang sabi, "nor is there male or female." Wala na palang lalaki at babae ngayon? Mali. Meron pa ring lalaki at babae ngayon.
Ang sabi rin, "there is neither Jew or Gentile." Wala na palang Jew or Gentile ngayon? Mali rin. Trace mo lang ang lahi, makikita mo ang Jew at Gentile. Kaya meron pa ring Jew and Gentile ngayon.
Paanong magiging tama ang sitas?
Alamin mo muna kung ano yung topic. Ito ang pinag-uusapan: "for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Yon naman pala. Kung salvation through Christ ang usapin, male or female, pareho lang may pag-asa sa kaligtasan. Kung salvation through Christ ang usapin, Jew or Gentile, pareho lang may pag-asa sa kaligtasan.
Therefore, figurative ito, hindi literal. Spiritual ito, hindi physical.
In the Old Testament, you must be part of the bloodline of Abraham --- the physical Israel.
In the New Testament, you need faith in Christ --- the spiritual Israel.
29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal. 3:29)
Abaraham's seed sa Old Testament. Bakit sa New Testament, Abraham's seed pa rin?
Kasi hindi na physical Abraham's seed by bloodline. Spiritual Abraham's seed na by faith in Christ.
Very easy.
====================================
How will you be saved? By faith in Christ.
Jew or Gentile, male or female, all are equal because they all have an equal chance at salvation by faith in Christ.
Freee will yon, hindi predestination.
Nasaan ang predestination diyan? Wala na naman.
isama ko yung paunang verse para maintindihan mo you proper context
26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Inde na po kino-consider kung Jews ka o Gentile ka, lalaki ka o babae ka yun po ang ibigsahin ng verse para yung lahat po na kay Cristo.
Quote
Madali lang intindihin yan sir.
1. Children of promise by descent: On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” (Rom. 9:6) They are children of promise because they are descendants of Isaac.
2. Children of promise by faith: 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal. 4:21-28) They are not descendants of Isaac, but they are children of promise "like Isaac."
One is by descent --- physical children. The other is by faith in Christ --- spiritual children.
2. Children of promise by faith: 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. (Gal. 4:21-28) They are not descendants of Isaac, but they are children of promise "like Isaac."
yung Children of Promise By Faith is like Isaac, ibig sabihin si Isaac ay spiritual children.
e sinasabe rin na si Isaac ay yung physical children by descent.
Malinaw na walang pagkakaiba yung physical descent at spiritual children.
Inde ka ba nagugulo sa sinasabe mo?
Post by: barrister on Aug 14, 2015 at 08:03 PM
isama ko yung paunang verse para maintindihan mo you proper context
26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Inde na po kino-consider kung Jews ka o Gentile ka, lalaki ka o babae ka yun po ang ibigsahin ng verse para yung lahat po na kay Cristo.
Pareho rin yan nung sinabi ko, e... :D
yung Children of Promise By Faith is like Isaac, ibig sabihin si Isaac ay spiritual children.
e sinasabe rin na si Isaac ay yung physical children by descent.
Malinaw na walang pagkakaiba yung physical descent at spiritual children.
Inde ka ba nagugulo sa sinasabe mo?
Napakadali lang intindihin niyan sir.
Alamin mo lang kung sino ang kausap ni Pablo.
Sino ang kausap sa Rom. 9:6 (bloodline of Isaac)? Sino ang kausap sa Gal. 4:28 (not the bloodline, but only "like Isaac")?
Maliwanag na malaki ang kaibahan ng hereditary descent as basis for the bloodline of Jesus, sa faith in Christ as basis for the salvation of all.
Simpleng-simple, hindi na kailangan ng dagdag pang paliwanag.
Post by: barrister on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:17 AM
Bakit nga kailangan pang bayaran? Kung hindi binayaran, maliligtas ba yung predestined?
Ang dapat na tanong, ano ang babayaran kung predestined din naman pala? If predestined to heaven, dapat they do not sin. If they do not sin, what has to be paid for?
Ang sabi nila, predestined, pero nagkakaroon ng sin. Christ will pay for the sins only of those predestined to heaven.
Sana derecho na sa langit, pero ang gusto, sa lupa muna, magkakasala muna, tapos ililigtas, tapos pupunta sa langit. Pero since the beginning of time, they were predestined to heaven, and it's impossible for them not to get to heaven.
Umikot pa ng round trip, imposible naman palang hindi sa langit ang punta.
Makes no sense.
===================================
Our earthly life is a testing ground. If we use our free will to follow Christ, we qualify for heaven. Otherwise, we go to hell.
Which one makes more sense?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 15, 2015 at 11:54 AM
Ang dapat na tanong, ano ang babayaran kung predestined din naman pala? If predestined to heaven, dapat they do not sin. If they do not sin, what has to be paid for?
Ang sabi nila, predestined, pero nagkakaroon ng sin. Christ will pay for the sins only of those predestined to heaven.
Sana derecho na sa langit, pero ang gusto, sa lupa muna, magkakasala muna, tapos ililigtas, tapos pupunta sa langit. Pero since the beginning of time, they were predestined to heaven, and it's impossible for them not to get to heaven.
Umikot pa ng round trip, imposible naman palang hindi sa langit ang punta.
Makes no sense.
===================================
Our earthly life is a testing ground. If we use our free will to follow Christ, we qualify for heaven. Otherwise, we go to hell.
Which one makes more sense?
How can we glorify God if we didnt fall and how can we glorify God if we have part in our own salvation? Salvation is given to us, it is free, we never work for our salvation.
Can I give all the glory to God if I need to keep working for my own salvation?
The Holy Spirit will touched the heart of a man after hearing the Word of God (dito na papasok ang free will) and if that man rejects the Holy SPirit and didnt believe the Word of GOd he is going to hell and if he heed to the Holy SPirt and believe that Jesus is Lord and Saviour he is going to be saved. THe glory will be all to God. We didnt have any part in our salvation. God alone completed our salvation.
Post by: barrister on Aug 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM
The Holy Spirit will touched the heart of a man after hearing the Word of God (dito na papasok ang free will) and if that man rejects the Holy SPirit and didnt believe the Word of GOd he is going to hell and if he heed to the Holy SPirt and believe that Jesus is Lord and Saviour he is going to be saved.
That is not Five-Point Calvinism. That is free will, not predestination.
That violates "Irresistible Grace," the "I" in TULIP, the acronym of Five-Point Calvinism.
In Calvinism's doctrine of Irresistible Grace, it will be impossible for the those elected since the beginning of time to resist the inward call of the Holy Spirit. That's why it's called "irresistible." http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html (http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html)
If it is irresistible to the elect, then elect have no free will in this matter.
Yet you say they have free will to reject the Holy Spirit? That is not Calvinism. That is not predestination.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 15, 2015 at 02:26 PM
That is not Five-Point Calvinism. That is free will, not predestination.
That violates "Irresistible Grace," the "I" in TULIP, the acronym of Five-Point Calvinism.
In Calvinism's doctrine of Irresistible Grace, it will be impossible for the those elected since the beginning of time to resist the inward call of the Holy Spirit. That's why it's called "irresistible." http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html (http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html)
If it is irresistible to the elect, then elect have no free will in this matter.
Yet you say they have free will to reject the Holy Spirit? That is not Calvinism. That is not predestination.
<qouted>
Unconditional election also does not mean that there will be people in heaven who do not want to be there, nor will there be people in hell who wanted to be saved but could not be because they were not elect. Unconditional election properly recognizes that, apart from God’s supernatural work in the life of a sinner, men will always choose to reject God and rebel against Him. What unconditional election does correctly recognize is that God intervenes in the lives of the elect and works in their lives through the Holy Spirit so that they willingly respond in faith to Him. Because they are “his sheep…they hear his voice and follow him” (John 10:1-30). As for the non-elect, God is still gracious to them, but because of their sin they are not thankful for that grace, nor do they acknowledge Him as God (Romans 1:18-20). Consequently, they receive the just punishment due them. Those whom God elects are beneficiaries of His sovereign grace and mercy, and those whom He does not elect receive the justice they have earned. While the elect receive God’s perfect grace, the non-elect receive God’s perfect justice.
<qouted>
Post by: barrister on Aug 16, 2015 at 10:39 AM
<qouted>
... God intervenes in the lives of the elect and works in their lives through the Holy Spirit so that they willingly respond in faith to Him. ...
<qouted>
The http://www.gotquestions.org/unconditional-election.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/unconditional-election.html) quote says the so-called elect "willingly respond in faith" to God.
When were they elected? Before they were born. Since the beginning of time.
Is it possible for them not to "willingly respond in faith to God"? No, because they were predestined to willingly respond in faith to God.
How can it be free will if it is impossible to reject it?
According to Calvinism, man has no free will in eternal salvation. Either he's elected or he's not.
But just insert the word "willing" and it sounds like he's willing, even if it's impossible for him to refuse because he was predestined.
That's how Calvinism sanitizes its unbiblical doctrine of predestination.
==================================
A Calvinist’s Understanding of “Free-Will”
March 1, 2010
... Calvinists, such as myself, do believe in free will and we don’t believe in free will. It just depends on what you mean.
... If you ask whether a person can choose against their nature (i.e. libertarian freedom) the answer, I believe, must be “no.” A person’s nature makes up who they are. Who they are determines their choice. If there choice is determined, then the freedom is self-limited. Therefore, there is no “power” of contrary choice for we cannot identify what or who this “power” might be.
... If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/a-calvinists-understanding-of-free-will/ (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/a-calvinists-understanding-of-free-will/)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 16, 2015 at 11:30 AM
I believe that i am not capable of looking for God, because of my sin i am always willing to reject God even deny His existemce. The Bible said it is God who seek, and me always hide. Without God i will never accept Jesus as my savior. God touched my heart and i believed.
Election is Biblical since it is in the Bible, apostles use them in theie greetings to churches, they use it to glorify God, to show the grace of God.
Yes, apart from grace of God, men will not be saved. Men will go to hell not because they were not elected, nor because they did not hrar the gospel. Men will die spiritially becaise of our sins.
2 Timothy 1:9 - Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:37 - All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
God draws me, Holy Spirit touched my heart upon hearing the Word of God and I believe and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.
Without the Holy Spirit human will always willingly reject God's grace that is salvation in God alone. Human will always make effort to save themselves not recognizing the very effort Jesus did to save them.
Post by: barrister on Aug 16, 2015 at 02:59 PM
Well, i am not a calvinist, calvinist believed that an elected person will be saved even if they not share the Word of God.
What if Calvinists believe that an elected person also has the responsibility to share the word of God, would you then consider yourself Calvinist?
It is not true that Calvinists do not believe they have a responsibility to evangelize.
Calvinism and Evangelism
Bill Welzien
... At this point, the non-Calvinist infers that the impetus and urgency to proclaim the gospel is gone, or diminished at best. After all, if God knows who is going to be saved, and if he will save his elect no matter what, why waste our time evangelizing?
But it is important to recognize that the God of the Bible ordains not only the end (salvation) but also the means to the end (the proclamation of the gospel).
Jesus is the Good Shepherd. And through evangelism, he is calling his sheep to himself. He calls his own sheep by name, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice (John 10:3-4). They know his voice because, at God's appointed time, the Holy Spirit gives the elect ears to hear and hearts to understand (Matt. 13:23).
... Does Calvinism take the wind out of the sails of evangelism? Properly understood and sincerely believed, it does exactly the opposite. Believing that God has a sovereign plan to bring all his elect to himself actually encourages evangelism. It gives confidence to us, God's people, to fulfill our God-given responsibility to spread his gospel. We know that our labor in the Lord is never in vain (1 Cor. 15:58)!
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07b.html (http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH01/07b.html)
Calvinists believe that those who will be saved were predestined to be saved. But they also believe salvation is the end result; that evangelization is the ordinary means to that end; that God brings the elect to Himself though the preaching of the gospel.
Therefore, Calvinists are encouraged to evangelize God's word to to others.
In fact, John Calvin himself viewed evangelism as an obigation of the elect. Calvin wrote:
"It is a sacrifice well-pleasing to God to advance the spread of the gospel."
"It is very just that we should labor ... to further the progress of the gospel."
"We must, in gratitude, bring the gospel to others in distress or appear ungrateful to God for our own salvation." http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/10-4/10-4_beeke.pdf (http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/10-4/10-4_beeke.pdf)
Election is Biblical since it is in the Bible, apostles use them in theie greetings to churches, they use it to glorify God, to show the grace of God.
Yes, election is biblical.
But the problem is not the word itself; the problem is Calvinism's misunderstanding of the word.
===================================
2 Timothy 1:9 - Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Tama. God called us according to His purpose and grace.
What was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began? The plan of salvation. Not the individual's predestination to salvation, just the plan of salvation for all.
What's the plan? You will receive salvation on the condition that you have faith in Christ.
Therefore, you're free to refuse if you don't want to comply with the condition.
That's free will, not predestination.
John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Tama. The Israelites rejected the Father, that's why they can't come to the Son.
This is the proper approach to understanding the principle:
Unlike your prior 2 Tim. 1:9, this verse is about the Jews. If an Israelite accepted the Father, then he would also accept the Son, because the Father and the Son are one. Since the Israelite who previously accepted the Father first belonged to the Father, the Father will now turn him over to the Son.
This has nothing to do with Calvinism. In Jesus' time, the Jews insisted that they were right with God, but Jesus declared the opposite:
“You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” (John 8:19)
“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8:47)
According to Jesus, the problem of the Jews was simple: The Jews rejected the Son because they rejected the Father: “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me.” (John 5:43)
To understand your cited John 6:44, let's look at John 6, this time from verse 41. Note that the audience are the Jews:
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
First step, the Jewish faithful, through their own free will, must receive the Father. Since the Father and the Son are one, those who receive the Father should also receive the Son. Then the Father draws them and delivers them to the Son.
See the related verse to see what happens after the Father draws the believing Jews: He delivers them to the Son:
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Mt. 11:27)
First, the Father has the Israelites who by free will belong to Him, then the Father draws them and transfers them to the Son.
That's why for the Israelites of the day, they can't get to the Son unless the Father draws them to the Son, because the starting point is the Father.
How do the Israelites start with the Father? By predestination? No. They must do something of their own free will --- hear and learn from the Father.
That's why the above-quoted John 6:45 says: They will all be taught by God. Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
First --- taught by God, with this condition --- the Jews hear and learn from Him. They are free to refuse to hear; they are free to refuse to learn.
If the Jews freely hear and learn from the Father, they belong to the Father, then as a continuation, since the Father and the Son are one, they continue to freely come to the Son. It does not say a certain group that was predestined since the beginning of time will come to the Son.
That's free will, not predestination since the beginning of time.
John 6:37 - All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Tama. We're still in John 6, so the principle is the same.
In the doctrine of predestination, the starting point is always election of the saved since the begining of time, which is unbiblical.
But in this verse, the starting point is the Jews who by free will received the Father. Then the Father turns them over to the Son, and they continue in free will to have faith in the Son. Those Jews who continue in free will to have faith in the Son will not be rejected by the Son.
That's still free will; still not predestination.
==================================
God draws me, Holy Spirit touched my heart upon hearing the Word of God and I believe and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.
Without the Holy Spirit human will always willingly reject God's grace that is salvation in God alone. Human will always make effort to save themselves not recognizing the very effort Jesus did to save them.
If the Holy Spirit touched your heart, do you have free will to reject it?
Or is it, according to Calvinism, an "Irresistible Grace" that is impossible to resist?
If it is an irresistible grace, then it is not free will.
Are you sure you're not a Calvinist? ;)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 16, 2015 at 11:41 PM
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph. 1:4-6 KJV
"chosen before the foundation of the world" and "predestined us unto the adoption of children... according to the good pleasure of His will"
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Eph.1:9-14 KJV
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Rom.8:28-30 KJV
---
When God created Man in His own image He created them with free will. God predestinate (there are elects) and man have free will. I know as human i cant comprehend how predistination and free will go hand in hand... but i wll qoute again this site (http://www.gotquestions.org/predestination.html) - Both facts are equally true.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Rom.11:33-36
All glory must be to God not in us.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 17, 2015 at 09:19 AM
Ang dapat na tanong, ano ang babayaran kung predestined din naman pala? If predestined to heaven, dapat they do not sin. If they do not sin, what has to be paid for?
Ang sabi nila, predestined, pero nagkakaroon ng sin. Christ will pay for the sins only of those predestined to heaven.
Sana derecho na sa langit, pero ang gusto, sa lupa muna, magkakasala muna, tapos ililigtas, tapos pupunta sa langit. Pero since the beginning of time, they were predestined to heaven, and it's impossible for them not to get to heaven.
Umikot pa ng round trip, imposible naman palang hindi sa langit ang punta.
Makes no sense.
===================================
Our earthly life is a testing ground. If we use our free will to follow Christ, we qualify for heaven. Otherwise, we go to hell.
Which one makes more sense?
People are chossen to receive eternal life. Since may kasalanang dapat bayaran, nakapaloob po ang pagbabayad sa pamamagitan ng dugo.
Acts 20:28
28Ingatan ninyo ang inyong sarili, at ang buong kawan, na sa kanila'y ginawa kayo ng Espiritu Santo na mga obispo, upang pakanin ninyo ang iglesia ng Panginoon na binili niya ng kaniyang sariling dugo.
John 1:12Datapuwa't ang lahat ng sa kaniya'y nagsitanggap, ay pinagkalooban niya sila ng karapatang maging mga anak ng Dios, sa makatuwid baga'y ang mga nagsisisampalataya sa kaniyang pangalan: 13Na mga ipinanganak na hindi sa dugo, ni sa kalooban ng laman, ni sa kalooban ng tao, kundi ng Dios.
If we use our free will to follow Christ, we qualify for heaven
Disqualify po yung lahat ng ng exercise ng free will. Maliwanag po ang verse 13,
13Na mga ipinanganak na hindi sa dugo, ni sa kalooban ng laman, ni sa kalooban ng tao, kundi ng Dios.
Kung hindi nilloob ng Dios kahit ka pa ipinanganak na Israelita, kahit nag exercise ka ng "Free Will", inde po ito mag-mamaterialize. What make sense is that niloob ba ng Dios na ikaw ay maligtas.
Post by: barrister on Aug 17, 2015 at 11:25 AM
People are chossen to receive eternal life. Since may kasalanang dapat bayaran, nakapaloob po ang pagbabayad sa pamamagitan ng dugo.
Tama. Pag nabayaran na ang kasalanan, malinis ka na.
Wala ka nang dapat gawin kasi bayad na ang kasalanan mo? Hindi. May obligasyon ka pa rin na gawin.
Ano ang dapat mong gawin pag malinis ka na? Have faith in Christ, follow Him and continue to remain in Him. If you do not, you will lose your salvation.
... he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (Mt. 10:22) Who shall be saved? He that endureth to the end. Therefore, he who does not endure to the end will not be saved.
Therefore, there is a condition. You must remain in Christ. If you do not remain in Christ, you will be thrown into the fire ---
6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:6) The condition --- you must remain in Christ.
2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. (1 Cor. 15:2) The condition --- if you hold firmly to the Word.
Ang sabi, you are saved, "if." This is not predestination. You are saved because you believed and accepted the Gospel. That is free will. Then there is a condition --- if you hold firmly to the Word. Free will na naman. Because if you do not hold firmly to the word, you will lose your salvation. Free will pa rin.
Free will sa umpisa, free will ang kasunod, free will pa rin hanggang wakas.
9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:9) Again, with a condition --- if we do not give up. E di free will nga hanggang wakas.
Ano ang relevance ng salitang "if we do not give up" sa Calvinist? Di ba even before the foundation of the world, saved na kayo, sigurado na kayo sa langit, at imposibleng hindi kayo mapunta sa langit?
Maliwanag na unbiblical ang Calvinism.
If we use our free will to follow Christ, we qualify for heaven
Disqualify po yung lahat ng ng exercise ng free will. Maliwanag po ang verse 13,
13Na mga ipinanganak na hindi sa dugo, ni sa kalooban ng laman, ni sa kalooban ng tao, kundi ng Dios.
Tama. Dahil tinanggap niya ang Anak, siya ay naging anak ng Diyos sa kalooban ng Diyos.
Paano kang naging anak ng Diyos? --- sa kalooban ng Diyos.
Paano mong tinanggap ang Anak? --- sa sarili mong free will.
Ang pagtanggap sa Anak ay free will ng tao, hindi predestination.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 17, 2015 at 01:06 PM
Tama. Pag nabayaran na ang kasalanan, malinis ka na.
Wala ka nang dapat gawin kasi bayad na ang kasalanan mo? Hindi. May obligasyon ka pa rin na gawin.
Ano ang dapat mong gawin pag malinis ka na? Have faith in Christ, follow Him and continue to remain in Him. If you do not, you will lose your salvation.
... he that endureth to the end shall be saved. (Mt. 10:22) Who shall be saved? He that endureth to the end. Therefore, he who does not endure to the end will not be saved.
Therefore, there is a condition. You must remain in Christ. If you do not remain in Christ, you will be thrown into the fire ---
6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:6) The condition --- you must remain in Christ.
2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. (1 Cor. 15:2) The condition --- if you hold firmly to the Word.
Ang sabi, you are saved, "if." This is not predestination. You are saved because you believed and accepted the Gospel. That is free will. Then there is a condition --- if you hold firmly to the Word. Free will na naman. Because if you do not hold firmly to the word, you will lose your salvation. Free will pa rin.
Free will sa umpisa, free will ang kasunod, free will pa rin hanggang wakas.
9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (Gal. 6:9) Again, with a condition --- if we do not give up. E di free will nga hanggang wakas.
Ano ang relevance ng salitang "if we do not give up" sa Calvinist? Di ba even before the foundation of the world, saved na kayo, sigurado na kayo sa langit, at imposibleng hindi kayo mapunta sa langit?
Maliwanag na unbiblical ang Calvinism.
Tama. Dahil tinanggap niya ang Anak, siya ay naging anak ng Diyos sa kalooban ng Diyos.
Paano kang naging anak ng Diyos? --- sa kalooban ng Diyos.
Paano mong tinanggap ang Anak? --- sa sarili mong free will.
Ang pagtanggap sa Anak ay free will ng tao, hindi predestination.
Romans 8:28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.
Sa verse above, maliwanag na yung predestination, calling, justification and glorification - All of these are God's work. At wala pong kinalaman ang free will ng tao diyan.
Anong klaseng Free Will ang sinasabe mo, ni wala nga tayong kakayang piliin ang Dios at saan ba ang tao papunta, kapahamakan.
Eph 2:1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesha and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
Bakit ba nagkaroon ng Kaligtasan ang tao, di ba binuhay muna siya dahil patay tayo sa kasalana, kinahabagan at dahil sa biyaya ang tao ay naligtas.
1At kayo'y binuhay niya, nang kayo'y mga patay dahil sa inyong mga pagsalangsang at mga kasalanan, 2Na inyong nilakaran noong una ayon sa lakad ng sanglibutang ito, ayon sa pangulo ng mga kapangyarihan ng hangin, ng espiritu na ngayon ay gumagawa sa mga anak ng pagsuway; 3Sa gitna ng mga yaon, tayo rin naman, ng ibang panahon ay nangabubuhay sa mga kahalayan ng ating laman, na ating ginagawa ang mga pita ng laman at ng pagiisip, at tayo noo'y katutubong mga anak ng kagalitan, gaya naman ng mga iba: 4Nguni't ang Dios, palibhasa'y mayaman sa awa, dahil sa kaniyang malaking pagibig na kaniyang iniibig sa atin, 5Bagama't tayo'y mga patay dahil sa ating mga kasalanan, tayo'y binuhay na kalakip ni Cristo (sa pamamagitan ng biyaya kayo'y nangaligtas), 6At tayo'y ibinangong kalakip niya, at pinaupong kasama niya sa sangkalangitan, kay Cristo Jesus: 7Upang sa mga panahong darating ay maihayag niya ang dakilang kayamanan ng kaniyang biyaya sa kagandahang-loob sa atin kay Cristo Jesus: 8Sapagka't sa biyaya kayo'y nangaligtas sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya; at ito'y hindi sa inyong sarili, ito'y kaloob ng Dios; 9Hindi sa pamamagitan ng mga gawa, upang ang sinoman ay huwag magmapuri. 10Sapagka't tayo'y kaniyang gawa, na nilalang kay Cristo Jesus para sa mabubuting gawa, na mga inihanda ng Dios nang una upang siya nating lakaran.
Makakatulong ba ang Free Will mo, kung kailangan kapang buhayin mula sa mga patay dahil sa pagsalangsang.
Ang totoo, tinanggap mo ang katotohang inde mo kayang iligtas ang sarili mo at utang mo rin sa Dios na tanggapin siya dahil tayo ay nilalang or nilikha ng Dios para sa mabubiting gawa.
Isang mabuting gawin ng tao ay tumanggap at manampalataya. It is alway the will of God.
God made you alive to receive grace. Faith is a gift from God. You were able to accept and believe because that is the WILL of GOD for you to do, you are created to do good works.
Sa tinggin mo kaya mawawala yung salvationn sa isang tao, inde, dahil it is the WILL of GOD ang nangyayari.
Phil 2:12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
God is the one who is fulfilling..
and again,
Romans 8:28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
33Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 17, 2015 at 01:19 PM
Puwede kasi sumunod sa gusto ng Diyos at puwede rin namang hindi. Dahil dalawa ang puwedeng pagpilian, puwede natin sabihin na may laya tayo pumili o "free will". Kung isa lang puwedeng pagpilian hindi na "free will" tawag dun at ipinilit sa iyo na kailangan mong gawin.
Kung sinasabi ng Diyos na puwede siyang magpatawad ang ibig sabihin ay puwede pala ngayon na hindi ako sumunod at sa ibang araw sa hinaharap ay susunod ako.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 17, 2015 at 01:48 PM
Para po sa aking kaliwanagan. Ano po ba ang sinasabing "free will"? Karamihan kasi ng nasasaad ay may kapangyarihan kang pumili. Kung wala kang pagpipilian, hindi na iyun "free will". Tama po ba?
Puwede kasi sumunod sa gusto ng Diyos at puwede rin namang hindi. Dahil dalawa ang puwedeng pagpilian, puwede natin sabihin na may laya tayo pumili o "free will". Kung isa lang puwedeng pagpilian hindi na "free will" tawag dun at ipinilit sa iyo na kailangan mong gawin.
Kung sinasabi ng Diyos na puwede siyang magpatawad ang ibig sabihin ay puwede pala ngayon na hindi ako sumunod at sa ibang araw sa hinaharap ay susunod ako.
sa mga talata sa baba at ibatay natin yung description ng Free Will ng karamihan, ano kaya ang pinipili ng tao..
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesha and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
Kanino kayang will ang sinusunod ng tao, free will ba niya?
Post by: barrister on Aug 17, 2015 at 07:14 PM
Romans 8:28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
...and again,
Romans 8:28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Rom. 8:29-30 is among the strongest verses in favor of predestination, since the word "predestined" actualy appears in it.
Kaya nga ang sabi ko noong una pa lang:
Ilabas mo na sir yung Rom. 8:29-30, para mas interesting:
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
;)
Hindi natin maiiwasan ang kaibahan ng interpretation sa predestination, kaya useless na pilitin natin ang isa't isa.
Ang sinasabi ko lang, may mga tao na dati nang alam ang Rom. 8:29-30, pero hindi pa rin naniniwala sa predestination.
In the bible, there are only two chapters where the word predestination appears: Romans 8:29-30, and Ephesians 1:5, 11. In both cases, the meaning is the same.
But the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination is not consistent with what the bible as a whole teaches.
In the bible, predestination refers to the sovereign plan of God for salvation. This plan was predestined before the foundation of the world. But individuals are not predestined to eternal salvation or damnation, because it is their free will that will determine if they will be saved or damned.
Tignan natin sa reply ko sa post ni sir dpogs.
Post by: barrister on Aug 17, 2015 at 07:15 PM
Predistination is also Biblical since it is found in the Bible.
The issue is not whether the word "predestination" is found in the bible.
The issue is the proper understanding of the word "predestination" in the bible.
==================================
As I previously said, there are only two chapters where the word predestination appears: Romans 8:29-30, and Ephesians 1:5, 11.
Since sir dpogs started with Ephesians, I will also start with Ephesians.
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph. 1:4-6 KJV
"chosen before the foundation of the world" and "predestined us unto the adoption of children... according to the good pleasure of His will"
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Eph.1:9-14 KJV
You combined two different topics.
The first topic is for the Jewish Christians. The second topic is for Gentile Christians.
Huwag gamitin ang first topic para sa sarili kung ikaw ay Pilipino, hindi Hudyo.
========================================
1. The first topic, for Jewish Christians. These are verses 4-12:
4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Eph. 1:4-12)
Saul of Tarsus was a Jew who persecuted the early Christians. Saul referred to himself as "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee. Then Saul was converted to Chritianity; his name became "Paul;" and he became the apostle to the Gentiles.
In these verses, Paul said "us" and "we," because he was referring to himself and others like him --- the Jewish Christians:
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.(Eph. 1:4) - The Israelite nation was chosen by God to be holy. The plan for the Israelite nation existed before the creation of the world. It does not mean that all Israelites were guaranteed salvation, because what existed before the foundation of the world was only the plan for the nation, not the guarantee of individual salvation.
What was the plan?
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. (Rom. 1:16)
Salvation to all who have faith. Not to those who were predestined to indivdual salvation from the beginning of time, but salvation to all who freely have faith. First to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. (Eph. 1:4-6) - The Jews as a nation were in God's plan that existed since the beginning of time.
What was predestined was just the plan of salvation, not individual eternal salvation.
Predestined the Jewish nation to what? For adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ.
If the Jews have faith in Christ, they become adopted sons of the Father. This plan of salvation is an act of God's grace. This faith in Christ on the part of the believing Jews is an act of free will. If they do not have faith in Christ, then they do not become adopted sons of the Father.
What was predestined? The plan of the Father.
What requires free will? The Jews' act of faith in the Son. That's free will, not predestination.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. (Eph. 1:7-10) - Here, Paul says the Father made known to the Jews the mystery of His will.
And what is the mystery of the will of the Father which He purposed in Christ? To bring unity to all things under Christ.
Paul further clarifies the meaning of the mystery:
4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 3:4-6)
The mystery of the will of the Father is the mystery of Christ. Meaning, the mystery that faith in Christ will bring salvation not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Eph. 1:11-12) - So, the Jews were chosen as part of God's plan of salvation --- "first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." (Rom. 1:16)
Through the Jewish nation will come Jesus the Savior, the faithful Jews will believe, then the faithful Gentiles will also believe, so that all can be saved provided they have faith in Christ.
That is the plan of God, and that plan was predestined by God. However, the faith of those who will believe in Christ arises from free will, not predestination.
Therefore, all have a chance to be saved. It is no longer limited to the Jews. But the condition is that they must have faith in Christ. That is free will, not predestination.
In predestination, only the exclusive club of the elect were chosen from the beginning of time to be saved. But in the bible, God wants all to be saved:
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4)
If God already chose before the foundation of the world who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, why would God still say that He wants all people to repent so that they can be saved?
God wants everyone to repent, including those who are predestined to go to hell, even if it's impossible for them to go to heaven?
Ano yon, umaarte lang ang Diyos? O mali lang talaga ang doctrine of predestination?
====================================
2. The second topic, for Gentile Christians. These are verses 13-14:
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Eph. 1:13-14)
Now you see the shift from "us" to "you."
"You" refers to the Gentile Christians. --- 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. (Eph. 1:13)
When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, (Eph. 1:13) - When were you, the Gentile Christian, marked with a seal? When you believed, not before.
Therefore, for the Gentile Christian, his faith in Christ is required before he can have the seal.
Which means he did not have the seal even before he was born, even before the foundation of the world. He only gets the seal after he believes.
This is free will, not predestination.
The Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. (Eph. 1:14) - The Holy Spirit is the seal that marks us as belonging to God, until we are redeemed to eternal life.
==================================
Now for Romans 8:
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Rom.8:28-30 KJV
What is the meaning of the word "predestined"?
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Rom. 8:29)
Before the foundation of the world, God had a predestined plan of salvation. God foreknew that some would freely receive Him; some would freely reject Him. But God did not know who were the specific individuals who would accept or reject Him.
As part of the plan, God decrees from everlasting to everlasting that those who will receive God will also receive Christ; and all who receive Christ will freely become "Christ-like." The predestination does not refer to the specific individuals; it only refers to the predestined plan of salvation.
30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom. 8:30)
When the word predestine is used, it does not mean that God predetermines the specific individuals who will go to heaven or hell. Predestination simply refers to God's plan of salvation for all.
God knew that some will receive Him, and He also knew that some will not. Therefore, since God knew this beforehand, then God's predestined plan also included what will happen to those who will receive Him and to those who will not.
In Rom. 8:30, Paul illustrates a step-by-step process:
- God foreknew that some would receive Him.
- Those who received God, they used free will in accepting God.
- Those who received God, God called. That's after they already used free will in receiving God.
- Those whom God called, He justified. They are declared righteous because they followed God.
- Those whom God justified, He glorified. The end result is the glorification of those who freely chose to receive God.
Therefore, what is predestined is the process or the plan of salvation. Paul is not saying that from the foundation of the world, specific individuals are destined to heaven, while other specific individuals are doomed to hell.
Still in the book of Romans, all we have to do is to move 2 chapters forward and we will see how Paul explains how all can be justified:
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9-13)
How can all be justified? By faith in Christ.
He does not say justification is brought about by predestination. He says profess your faith with your mouth; believe with your heart; and you are justified; then you will be saved. That's everyone --- Jew and Gentile --- not an elect group chosen from the foundation of the world.
That's free will, not predestination.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 17, 2015 at 10:07 PM
And the meaning of "endureth until the end will be saved" isnt He talking to 12 Apostles, not Jew or Gentile christian. And it only means physical salvation, aince Jesus speaks about the hardship and persecution of being an apostles sent to preach the word.
Re: predestination and free will, i believe this two exist hand in hand as God planned them from the beginning. Same as i believe that Jesus is both man and God, possessing attributes of full human except sins amd full God including all atteibutes of God.
So we have these differences
Salvation for me is OSAS, and for you it needs to be maintained.
Election for me is for 'few' elects and predestined, for you it is not since God didnt know who will be saved or not
Trinity for me is Biblical, for you it is unbibilical
God is all knowing including those who will be saved and not He knew it aince the beginning of time, for you God didnt know them.
Post by: barrister on Aug 17, 2015 at 10:21 PM
Pero ito na lang isang point ang i-clarify ko:
Tanong ko lang sir barrister, if God knows the future how is it that He didnt know those who will be saved and not. How is it that He knows that only few can go to heaven and many will go to hell?
Remember that I do not believe God knows everything. You will recall that I posted earlier that the doctrine of God's omniscience is unbiblical.
God knows the future, except only in matters where man's free will is violated.
How does God know that some will be saved and some will not? Because God knows the future.
Why does God not know which individual will be saved? Because God does not know the things that will violate man's free will.
========================================
Example, isang teacher sa high school. Sabi ni teacher, she has predestined that those who will study hard will pass.
The predestination is the plan of passing those who learn, and failing those who don't. The plan existed even before the schoolyear started. But the act of studying is an act of free will by the students.
Does the teacher know beforehand that some will pass and some will fail? Siyempre naman.
Does the teacher know beforehand the exact names of individual students who will pass or fail? Of course not.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 18, 2015 at 12:04 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 18, 2015 at 07:42 AM
Post by: NongP on Aug 18, 2015 at 08:18 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 18, 2015 at 08:23 AM
Nang kumain si Adan ng pinagbabawal na bunga, maari ba niyang sabihin na hindi niya kasalan dahil naudyukan lamang siya ni Eve? Maari ba niyang sabihin na hindi niya naexercise free will kasi dahil kay Eve?
Free will nya yun. Pero base sa sinasabi mong God knows all, he was screwed :)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 18, 2015 at 08:30 AM
for me Adan fully exercised his free will kasi pinagbawalan na nga sila kainin yun fruit pero ginawa pa rin nila.
ibig kong sabihin is naudyukan siya ni eve? parang eve works is to entice adan then adan eat the fruit. na exercise ba ni adan ang free will niya since naudyukan siya ni eve?
Post by: NongP on Aug 18, 2015 at 08:59 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 18, 2015 at 09:23 AM
ibig kong sabihin is naudyukan siya ni eve? parang eve works is to entice adan then adan eat the fruit. na exercise ba ni adan ang free will niya since naudyukan siya ni eve?
Adam was enticed by Eve? Hindi yata ganon ang nasa bible.
Sa bible, binigay ni Eba kay Adan ang prutas, kinain naman ni Adan. Walang entice-entice.
Ganito ang scenario:
While Eve was alone, she was deceived by the serpent. Then she decided to eat the fruit. Decided pa lang, hindi pa kumakain.
Next scene. This time, Adam and Eve were together. Eve saw the fruit, ate some, gave some to Adam, Adam also ate some. Walang entice.
6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (Gen. 3:6)
Kaya nga ang wika, Eve was deceived and became a sinner, but Adam was not deceived and became a sinner:
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (1 Tim. 2:14)
Si Eba, deceived by the serpent, then ate. Si Adan, binigay lang ni Eba ang prutas, kinain na. Adam was not deceived.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 18, 2015 at 09:40 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 18, 2015 at 09:42 AM
Binola-bola siya ng serpent, then willingly ate. She was not hypnotized like a zombie acting without consciousness.
Why did she eat? Because she wanted to be like God, knowing good and evil.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 18, 2015 at 10:04 AM
Rom. 8:29-30 is among the strongest verses in favor of predestination, since the word "predestined" actualy appears in it.
Kaya nga ang sabi ko noong una pa lang:
Hindi natin maiiwasan ang kaibahan ng interpretation sa predestination, kaya useless na pilitin natin ang isa't isa.
Ang sinasabi ko lang, may mga tao na dati nang alam ang Rom. 8:29-30, pero hindi pa rin naniniwala sa predestination.
In the bible, there are only two chapters where the word predestination appears: Romans 8:29-30, and Ephesians 1:5, 11. In both cases, the meaning is the same.
But the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination is not consistent with what the bible as a whole teaches.
In the bible, predestination refers to the sovereign plan of God for salvation. This plan was predestined before the foundation of the world. But individuals are not predestined to eternal salvation or damnation, because it is their free will that will determine if they will be saved or damned.
Tignan natin sa reply ko sa post ni sir dpogs.
As Roman 9:11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told
inde pa na e-exercise ang Free Will may hinirang na.
23At upang maipakilala ang kayamanan ng kaniyang kaluwalhatian sa mga sisidlan ng awa, na kaniyang inihanda nang una pa sa kaluwalhatian
naihanda na pala nang una pa.
Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Kanino raw purpose? act ba yan ng Free Will? o Will ni GOD.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM
Of course Eve had free will.
Binola-bola siya ng serpent, then willingly ate. She was not hypnotized like a zombie acting without consciousness.
Why did she eat? Because she wanted to be like God, knowing good and evil.
she ate because she was deceived.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 18, 2015 at 10:15 AM
Of course Eve had free will.
Binola-bola siya ng serpent, then willingly ate. She was not hypnotized like a zombie acting without consciousness.
Why did she eat? Because she wanted to be like God, knowing good and evil.
Okay, the serpent lead Eve to eat the fruit and malinaw na Eve practices her free will.
If God lead me to believe the Gospel and i believe, did I practice free will?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM
@ barrister
Pano maliligtas ang tao pag pinairal niya yung tinatawag niyang Free Will?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 18, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Hindi na lang ako magco-comment sir, kasi hindi rin tayo magkakasundo.
Pero ito na lang isang point ang i-clarify ko:
Remember that I do not believe God knows everything. You will recall that I posted earlier that the doctrine of God's omniscience is unbiblical.
God knows the future, except only in matters where man's free will is violated.
How does God know that some will be saved and some will not? Because God knows the future.
Why does God not know which individual will be saved? Because God does not know the things that will violate man's free will.
========================================
Example, isang teacher sa high school. Sabi ni teacher, she has predestined that those who will study hard will pass.
The predestination is the plan of passing those who learn, and failing those who don't. The plan existed even before the schoolyear started. But the act of studying is an act of free will by the students.
Does the teacher know beforehand that some will pass and some will fail? Siyempre naman.
Does the teacher know beforehand the exact names of individual students who will pass or fail? Of course not.
Dose the Teacher knows who are children of promise or children of Abraham ? Siyempre naman.
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
Does the Teacher know beforehand the exact names of individual who are His people? Of course yes
3The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
“Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name; You are Mine.” (Isaiah 43:1)
Post by: barrister on Aug 18, 2015 at 04:54 PM
Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
Tama. Today salvation has come to this house.
Zacchaeus repented of his sins. Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house..."
When did salvation come to this house? Today. Not before the foundation of the world. It came today.
Why today? Because Zacchaeus repented today. That's free will, not predestination.
=================================
3The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
Tapos na tayo diyan sir.
That's John 10:3.
Is being a sheep an unchangeable condition? No.
Continue to John 10:25-26, then to John 10:37-38 ---
John 10:25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Is being Christ's sheep an unchangeable condition, or do we become Christ's sheep by our own actions?
Continue the chapter to John 10:37-38:
37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
In the prior verses, Jesus said only the sheep believe. But in these verses, Jesus is encouraging the non-sheep to believe.
Why encourage them to believe, if being sheep is a predestined, unchangeable condition?
It is clear that being sheep is accomplished by believing, not by pre-ordained condition.
===================================
“Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name; You are Mine.” (Isaiah 43:1)
Tama. God redeemed the nation of Israel from Egypt. God called the Israel nation by name. The nation Israel is God's.
This is not about individual salvation. This is about the nation Israel in relation to the Egyptians:
In Exodus, God said he will redeem the Israelites from the Egyptians:
6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. (Ex. 6:6)
Now we go to your Isaiah quote:
“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze. 3 For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead. (Is. 43:1-3)
Post by: barrister on Aug 18, 2015 at 05:17 PM
As Roman 9:11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told
inde pa na e-exercise ang Free Will may hinirang na.
Tama. Hindi pa pinapanganak si Jacob, hinirang na siya para maging pagmumulan ng lahi kung saan ipapanganak si Hesus.
Hindi hinirang para mapunta sa langit, hinirang lang para maging lahi sa lupa.
Romans 9 is about the Israelite bloodline, not individual savation. Tapos na tayo diyan sir:
That's why Esau was firstborn, yet Jacob was elected, because God is not limited to any rules of heredity. God is sovereign and will choose whom he wants.
Jacob was elected to go to heaven?
No. Jacob's line was elected as the ascendant of Jesus. It is about the role of Israel as a nation in God's plan, not about individual salvation.
===================================
23At upang maipakilala ang kayamanan ng kaniyang kaluwalhatian sa mga sisidlan ng awa, na kaniyang inihanda nang una pa sa kaluwalhatian
naihanda na pala nang una pa.
That's Rom. 9:23.
Predestination? No. The vessel ("sisidlan") can repent if it wants. That's free will.
If the vessel repents, the potter will reconsider. That's free will.
Tapos na tayo diyan sir:
The vessel cannot complain to the potter. If the vessel is bad, the potter can destroy it.
But here's the point that you missed --- the vessel has the ability to repent.
If the vessel is bad, yet changes and turns out good later, the potter will reconsider and will not destroy it.
Can the vessel change so that the potter will reconsider? Yes. That's Jeremiah 18, with the same analogy of the potter ---
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me. 6 He said, “Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jer. 18:1-10)
In Jeremiah 18, we see that the potter can reconsider if he sees that the vessel changes or repents.
Bearing in mind that the vessels have the free will to change, and the potter can destroy the vessel that was originally good but became bad, or form into another vessel the one that became good, let's continue to Romans 9:22 onwards ---
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Rom. 9:22-24)
In verse 22 --- The vessels of wrath. The potter endured with much patience, wating for the vessels to change into good vessels. If the vessels change into good, the potter will not destroy them.
In verse 23 --- The vessels of mercy. The potter made good vessels, but if the vessels become bad, the potter will destroy them.
The vessel can change from bad into good, and the potter will reconsider and will not destroy it.
That's not predestination, that's free will.
Final evidence that the vessel has the free will to change itself ---
20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. (Rom. 9:20-21)
Clearly, the vessel can change itself. Cleanse yourself from the dishonorable, and you become a good vessel, set apart as holy.
That's free will. Not predestination.
===================================
Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Tama. We are called according to God's plan of salvation.
The plan is that we should believe in Christ, and we will be saved. That's free will.
Kanino raw purpose? act ba yan ng Free Will? o Will ni GOD.
Kanino raw purpose? God's purpose in His plan of salvation.
God's will --- The plan of salvation.
Man's will --- The free will to believe in Christ.
What was predestined? The plan of the Father.
What was not predestined? Man's choice, to believe or not to believe in the Son. That's free will, not predestination.
==================================
Paulit-ulit ka na lang yata, sir.
Nauubusan ka na yata ng katuwiran... ;)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 18, 2015 at 05:36 PM
Quote
Romans 9 is about the Israelite bloodline, not individual savation. Tapos na tayo diyan sir:
Romans 9 is about God calling and election sir.
Post by: barrister on Aug 18, 2015 at 05:40 PM
Romans 9 is about God calling and election sir.
Ok lang kung iyon ang paniniwala mo sir.
Kaya nga nilahat ko ang Romans 9, 10 and 11, para ipakita ang logical progression in Israel's past, present and future.
If you have a different view, then you have a different view.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 18, 2015 at 05:50 PM
Quote
That's Rom. 9:23.
Predestination? No. The vessel ("sisidlan") can repent if it wants. That's free will.
If the vessel repents, the potter will reconsider. That's free will.
Tapos na tayo diyan sir:
Inde mo ata naiintindihan ang nasa talata:
23At upang maipakilala ang kayamanan ng kaniyang kaluwalhatian sa mga sisidlan ng awa, na kaniyang inihanda nang una pa sa kaluwalhatian
yung mga sisidlan ng awa ay naihanda na nang una pa.
at walang ganitong paliwanag ang Romans 9 na may ganyan at lalo na po yung ini-insist mong Free Will.
If the vessel repents, the potter will reconsider. That's free will.
may magagawa ba ang free will kung ang ibinilang ka ng Dios bilang kanya at tinawag na His People.
22What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”i
Ano kinalaman mo sa Will ng Dios o ang kinalaman ng free will mo kung tawagin ka ng Dios na 'my people' at 'my loved one'.
Free will ba ng tao na tawagin siya ng Dios na 'my people' at 'my loved one'?
@barrister, yung Romans 9 inde pa tapos sa iyo.
Nagsanib pwersa ba ang tao at Dios para piliin ng Dios ang Kanyang 'my people' at 'my loved one' ? Sinabe ba ng Free Will ng tao na isama siya sa vessels of mercy?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 18, 2015 at 08:20 PM
Ptrader: yes individual predestination, no free will
Dpogs: both yes
Post by: RU9 on Aug 18, 2015 at 10:59 PM
Barrister: no individual predestination, yes free will
Ptrader: yes individual predestination, no free will
Dpogs: both yes
All of the above will go to heaven?
or
only God knows?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:11 AM
All of the above will go to heaven?
or
only God knows?
only God knows? not really... the Bible says maari mong malaman yan
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. I John 5:13 KJV
This is one of my favorite verses at isa sa pinanghahawakan kong mga promises of God.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 19, 2015 at 02:10 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 19, 2015 at 02:16 AM
What is the purpose of spreading the gospel if you are predestined to go to hell?
We are not predestined to go to hell... we are going to hell because we are sinners. we willingly commit sins. no one force us to commit sins because our heart is exceedingly wicked.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 19, 2015 at 02:19 AM
We are not predestined to go to hell... we are going to hell because we are sinners. we willingly commit sins. no one force us to commit sins because our heart is exceedingly wicked.
Same question pa din. Hehe! What is the purpose of spreading the gospel if we are not predestined to go to hell. ;D
Post by: dpogs on Aug 19, 2015 at 02:47 AM
Same question pa din. Hehe! What is the purpose of spreading the gospel if we are not predestined to go to hell. ;D
For the glory of God
"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Rom.11:36
- God's word tells us to preach the gospel Mark 16:15
- It changes lives II Cor. 5:17
- Why not, it is a good news! :)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 19, 2015 at 06:23 AM
only God knows? not really... the Bible says maari mong malaman yan
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. I John 5:13 KJV
This is one of my favorite verses at isa sa pinanghahawakan kong mga promises of God.
So nalaman mo na kung pupunta kang heaven? Were you predestined?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 19, 2015 at 06:36 AM
So nalaman mo na kung pupunta kang heaven? Were you predestined?
puwede mo ring malaman... sabi sa Bible
"...believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life,"
hindi sa nalaman ko... kungdi iyan ang sinasabi ng Bible at iyan ang pangako ng Diyos.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 19, 2015 at 08:59 AM
What is the purpose of spreading the gospel if you are predestined to go to hell?
isa sa malinaw na purpose ng gospel:
Roman 1:16Sapagka't hindi ko ikinahihiya ang evangelio: sapagka't siyang kapangyarihan ng Dios sa ikaliligtas ng bawa't sumasampalataya; una'y sa Judio, at gayon din sa Griego. 17Sapagka't dito ang katuwiran ng Dios ay nahahayag mula sa pananampalataya hanggang sa pananampalataya: gaya ng nasusulat, Nguni't ang ganap ay mabubuhay sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya.
lahat naman po pupunta ng hell kasi dahil sa ating pagkakasala sa Dios.
dahil sa habag, biyaya at awa ng Dios may hinirang upang inde lahat mapunta ng hell.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 19, 2015 at 09:05 AM
So nalaman mo na kung pupunta kang heaven? Were you predestined?
Opo, ang Banal na Espirito po ang magpapatotoo sa iyo mismo na anak ka ng Dios.
Romans 8:14Sapagka't ang lahat ng mga pinapatnubayan ng Espiritu ng Dios, ay sila ang mga anak ng Dios. 15Sapagka't hindi ninyo muling tinanggap ang espiritu ng pagkaalipin sa ikatatakot; datapuwa't tinanggap ninyo ang espiritu ng pagkukupkop, na dahil dito'y sumisigaw tayo, Abba, Ama. 16Ang Espiritu rin ang nagpapatotoo kasama ng ating espiritu, na tayo'y mga anak ng Dios: 17At kung mga anak, ay mga tagapagmana nga; mga tagapagmana sa Dios, at mga kasamang tagapagmana ni Cristo; kung gayon nga makipagtiis tayo sa kaniya, upang tayo'y lumuwalhati namang kasama niya.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 19, 2015 at 09:06 AM
Opo, ang Banal na Espirito po ang magpapatotoo sa iyo mismo na anak ka ng Dios.
Romans 8:14Sapagka't ang lahat ng mga pinapatnubayan ng Espiritu ng Dios, ay sila ang mga anak ng Dios. 15Sapagka't hindi ninyo muling tinanggap ang espiritu ng pagkaalipin sa ikatatakot; datapuwa't tinanggap ninyo ang espiritu ng pagkukupkop, na dahil dito'y sumisigaw tayo, Abba, Ama. 16Ang Espiritu rin ang nagpapatotoo kasama ng ating espiritu, na tayo'y mga anak ng Dios: 17At kung mga anak, ay mga tagapagmana nga; mga tagapagmana sa Dios, at mga kasamang tagapagmana ni Cristo; kung gayon nga makipagtiis tayo sa kaniya, upang tayo'y lumuwalhati namang kasama niya.
So there's no way you're going in hell? Guaranteed seat ka na sa heaven?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 19, 2015 at 09:15 AM
Barrister: no individual predestination, yes free will
Ptrader: yes individual predestination, no free will
Dpogs: both yes
care to explain?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:26 AM
care to explain?
Kailangan po muna natin sir magkasundo ano ibig sibihin ng 'free will'.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:39 PM
So there's no way you're going in hell? Guaranteed seat ka na sa heaven?
opo
Post by: pTrader on Aug 19, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Kailangan po muna natin sir magkasundo ano ibig sibihin ng 'free will'.
siguro magkakassundo muna tayo sa choices, if you will permit for the meantime..
Post by: rexFi on Aug 19, 2015 at 01:37 PM
Visit us here... (http://evangelicalarminians.org/)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 19, 2015 at 04:17 PM
If Adam didn't have a Choice then God is the "Author of Sin".
Visit us here... (http://evangelicalarminians.org/)
Before and after the fall of man, may choice po ang tao.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 19, 2015 at 10:22 PM
For me free will is the ability to decide, gaano man kaunti o kadami ang choices in the end it is you who decide.
When the devil entice eve, it is not the devil who ate the fruit but Eve. Eve decided to eat the fruit and she wanted it.
When God clothed Adam and Eve, it is Adam and Eve choice to allow God clothed them and they wanted it.
When God touched my heart and lead me to salvation, it is me who accepted Christ and I want it during that time.
Post by: jerix on Aug 20, 2015 at 08:34 AM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 20, 2015 at 12:40 PM
I mean for you sir, what is free will?
For me free will is the ability to decide, gaano man kaunti o kadami ang choices in the end it is you who decide.
When the devil entice eve, it is not the devil who ate the fruit but Eve. Eve decided to eat the fruit and she wanted it.
When God clothed Adam and Eve, it is Adam and Eve choice to allow God clothed them and they wanted it.
When God touched my heart and lead me to salvation, it is me who accepted Christ and I want it during that time.
21The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
Quote
When God clothed Adam and Eve, it is Adam and Eve choice to allow God clothed them and they wanted it.
The action of clothing them is purely God's action. I did not find in the Scriptures that it is only by Adam and Eve permission that God clothed them rather God made garments and clothed Adam and Eve.
Post by: tigkal on Aug 20, 2015 at 01:11 PM
only God knows? not really... the Bible says maari mong malaman yan
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. I John 5:13 KJV
This is one of my favorite verses at isa sa pinanghahawakan kong mga promises of God.
Kaso meron naman yata verse sa bible na during end times, some people were telling that they were casting demons in Jesus's name, but still Christ did not know them. How sure are we that we are not those people? I guess what is really in your heart is what matters most. It is not religion, or good deeds, or faith. It is the heart, which means the motive or reason why you do what you do and believe in the beliefs of your faith or religion. In the end, it is God's decision, which will be based on your heart. Your treasure is where your heart is. Be it money, salvation, happiness, fear of hell, etc.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 20, 2015 at 01:36 PM
21The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
The action of clothing them is purely God's action. I did not find in the Scriptures that it is only by Adam and Eve permission that God clothed them rather God made garments and clothed Adam and Eve.
it is still their choice whether to accept God's clothing or not. also, i dont see in the Bible that God forced Adam and Eve to wear the garments of skin.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 20, 2015 at 01:41 PM
Kaso meron naman yata verse sa bible na during end times, some people were telling that they were casting demons in Jesus's name, but still Christ did not know them. How sure are we that we are not those people? I guess what is really in your heart is what matters most. It is not religion, or good deeds, or faith. It is the heart, which means the motive or reason why you do what you do and believe in the beliefs of your faith or religion. In the end, it is God's decision, which will be based on your heart. Your treasure is where your heart is. Be it money, salvation, happiness, fear of hell, etc.
Judas i believed ay hindi tunay na anak ng Diyos, but he is one of the apostles and he also perfromed miracles, nagpagaling ng mga may sakit in Jesus name.
for without faith it is impossible to please God. God or the bible never said that for without heart it is impossible to please God. God requires faith not what is in our heart. in fact the Bible mentioned that our heart is exceedingly wicked. our heart is the main reason why we cant follow the last commandment (#10) of ten commandment (the rest we can follow them).
Post by: pTrader on Aug 20, 2015 at 04:00 PM
it is still their choice whether to accept God's clothing or not. also, i dont see in the Bible that God forced Adam and Eve to wear the garments of skin.
Neither that a man exercise his "free will" not to wear the clothes God gave them.
They were not forced to wear but provided to wear.
In line with your presentation, Did God force Adam or it is the choice of Adam to sleep in the verse below:
21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man
Post by: dpogs on Aug 20, 2015 at 07:35 PM
Neither that a man exercise his "free will" not to wear the clothes God gave them.
They were not forced to wear but provided to wear.
In line with your presentation, Did God force Adam or it is the choice of Adam to sleep in the verse below:
21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man
Providing and forcing is two different level of action. God provided salvation and we decide whether to accept it or not.
"... for whosever believeth shall be saved..."
"... Ano man ang binigay sa akin ng Diyos ay lumalapit sa akin..."
GOD saved me but i never experienced that He force me to believe Him. God provided a clothing for me and i still have a choice to accept it or not by faith.
Regarding God making Adam fall asleep. I believe Adam want that also since Adam is lonely and need ng isang kasama.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:27 AM
Providing and forcing is two different level of action. God provided salvation and we decide whether to accept it or not.
"... for whosever believeth shall be saved..."
"... Ano man ang binigay sa akin ng Diyos ay lumalapit sa akin..."
GOD saved me but i never experienced that He force me to believe Him. God provided a clothing for me and i still have a choice to accept it or not by faith.
Regarding God making Adam fall asleep. I believe Adam want that also since Adam is lonely and need ng isang kasama.
Who is the one who determined the companion for Adam? God or Adam?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 24, 2015 at 10:54 AM
God provoded and determined the perfect salvation for us, it is our choice whether to accept it or not.
Salvation is a gift from God and it is our decision to accept the gift or not.
Ang binigay ng Diyos kay Jesus ay "naniwala" at "lumapit" kay Jesus. Wala akong nabasa sa Bible na ang mga taong ibinigay ng Diyos ay sapilitang lumapit o sapilitang naniwala.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:08 AM
Ang binigay ng Diyos kay Jesus ay "naniwala" at "lumapit" kay Jesus. Wala akong nabasa sa Bible na ang mga taong ibinigay ng Diyos ay sapilitang lumapit o sapilitang naniwala.
If that's the case, san papasok yung predestination?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:08 AM
It is Adam's choice to accept or not the companiom provided for him.
God provoded and determined the perfect salvation for us, it is our choice whether to accept it or not.
Salvation is a gift from God and it is our decision to accept the gift or not.
Ang binigay ng Diyos kay Jesus ay "naniwala" at "lumapit" kay Jesus. Wala akong nabasa sa Bible na ang mga taong ibinigay ng Diyos ay sapilitang lumapit o sapilitang naniwala.
So choice mo rin mamili ng biological parents?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 24, 2015 at 11:11 AM
If that's the case, san papasok yung predestination?
yung case na yun, salvation by work, wala ngang predestination..
Post by: tigkal on Aug 24, 2015 at 05:01 PM
Judas i believed ay hindi tunay na anak ng Diyos, but he is one of the apostles and he also perfromed miracles, nagpagaling ng mga may sakit in Jesus name.Without Judas, there will be no salvation since Christ will not die in the cross. That is according to my drinking buddy. We should be thankful to Judas since without him no salvation, no dying in the cross. The motive of Judas in following Christ was different from what was the intention. Because what was spoken was difficult to understand. Similar to the beginning of man, when God said eating the fruit will cause death, it does not mean death as the usual death. But when Lucifer informed what the fruit will do to the couple, it really did happen.
for without faith it is impossible to please God. God or the bible never said that for without heart it is impossible to please God. God requires faith not what is in our heart. in fact the Bible mentioned that our heart is exceedingly wicked. our heart is the main reason why we cant follow the last commandment (#10) of ten commandment (the rest we can follow them).
Post by: barrister on Aug 24, 2015 at 06:52 PM
Without Judas, there will be no salvation since Christ will not die in the cross. That is according to my drinking buddy. We should be thankful to Judas since without him no salvation, no dying in the cross.
Ang role ni Hudas, ituro lang sa sundalo si Hesus.
Kung hindi si Hudas ang magtuturo, maraming iba na puwedeng magturo. Ang daming nakakakilala kay Hesus, ang daming kalaban niya na puwedeng mag identify. Mahirap isipin na isang tao lang ang puwede at wala nang iba.
Similar to the beginning of man, when God said eating the fruit will cause death, it does not mean death as the usual death. But when Lucifer informed what the fruit will do to the couple, it really did happen.
Ang kaibahan, immortal sina Adan at Eba noong sinabihan sila ng Diyos. Pag sinabing mamamatay sila pag kinain ang prutas, hindi automatically ibig sabihing immediate, patay na; ibig sabihin mawawalan lang ng immortality.
Sa panahon ngayon, pag sinabing mamamatay ka pag kinain mo ang prutas, ang ibig sabihin, mamamatay ka agad. Kasi hindi tayo immortal, at lahat tayo mamamatay rin eventually, kainin man natin o hindi ang prutas.
Mahabang usapin yan, mali na naman kasi ang translation ng original Hebrew.
(Alam ko na yung maling sagot na "spiritual death" daw ang tinutukoy ng Diyos, kaya wag n'yo nang ipaliwanag yung mababaw na sagot na yon... :D )
Post by: rexFi on Aug 26, 2015 at 04:55 PM
^ Ayos ang discussion dito sa link re freewill ni Anakin. :)
Post by: majoe on Aug 27, 2015 at 04:10 PM
Neither that a man exercise his "free will" not to wear the clothes God gave them.
They were not forced to wear but provided to wear.
In line with your presentation, Did God force Adam or it is the choice of Adam to sleep in the verse below:
21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man
pati ba naman yan i connect mo sa freewill / predestination issue mo.
ginawa at inihanda ang mundo para sa tao, lahat mabuti. e natural, kasama pa rin yan. God provides our needs. Yung wants, e choice mo na siguro yun.
limited kasi ang free will. parang nung ipinanganak ka hanggang nasa pangangalaga ka pa ng magulang mo. may magagawa ka ba kung anong gustong isuot nila sa iyo o ipakain sa iyo nung maliit ka pa? wala di ba? pero alam ng parents mo nakakabuti sa iyo. di ka rin pwede lumayas kung san mo gusto, dami restrictions. kasi nasa pangagalaga ka pa nila. pero pag nasa tamang gulang ka na, pwede mo na gawin gusto mo pero alam mo na rin nun kung ano ang tama o mali.
ganun din naman sa pagtanda mo, may magagawa ka pa ba kung ano gawin sa iyo kung hirap ka na kumilos?
Post by: pTrader on Aug 27, 2015 at 06:24 PM
pati ba naman yan i connect mo sa freewill / predestination issue mo.
ginawa at inihanda ang mundo para sa tao, lahat mabuti. e natural, kasama pa rin yan. God provides our needs. Yung wants, e choice mo na siguro yun.
limited kasi ang free will. parang nung ipinanganak ka hanggang nasa pangangalaga ka pa ng magulang mo. may magagawa ka ba kung anong gustong isuot nila sa iyo o ipakain sa iyo nung maliit ka pa? wala di ba? pero alam ng parents mo nakakabuti sa iyo. di ka rin pwede lumayas kung san mo gusto, dami restrictions. kasi nasa pangagalaga ka pa nila. pero pag nasa tamang gulang ka na, pwede mo na gawin gusto mo pero alam mo na rin nun kung ano ang tama o mali.
ganun din naman sa pagtanda mo, may magagawa ka pa ba kung ano gawin sa iyo kung hirap ka na kumilos?
I am addressing free will sir not pre-destination on the context of the previous poster which i replied with.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 29, 2015 at 04:53 AM
Comedian Jim Jeffries on God. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk7MXWQOAM)
nothing new... another comedian
Post by: tony on Aug 29, 2015 at 08:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAag8mgdexk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5e-1sBM9FE
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 31, 2015 at 05:39 PM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11951745_1071052932920011_1448706137768856952_n.jpg?oh=071da557e6af8511784b19d1f0a4d7bd&oe=5676FB38)
Post by: rascal101 on Sep 02, 2015 at 03:48 PM
Ang taong wala sa tamang pag-isip ang nag-iisip na marami na siyang nalalaman bagkus konti lang kanyang nabasa.
Post by: bashi on Sep 05, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 09, 2015 at 02:56 AM
Revelation 17:8 KJV - The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Revelation 13:8 KJV - And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Dito natin ituloy ang paguusap tungkol sa Book of Life.
Revelation 17:8 KJV - The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Revelation 13:8 KJV - And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
please continue..
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Dito natin ituloy ang paguusap tungkol sa Book of Life.
Revelation 17:8 KJV - The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Revelation 13:8 KJV - And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Sa predestination pupunta si sir pTrader.
Para magkaroon ng direction ang usapan, clarify mo muna, kapatid:
Do you believe those verses prove predestination in the bible?
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 12:21 PM
Sa predestination pupunta si sir pTrader.
Para magkaroon ng direction ang usapan, clarify mo muna, kapatid:
Do you believe those verses prove predestination in the bible?
kakatawa ka sir, all along puro predestination ang nasa isip mo about pTrader..
since book of life yan, and again nakasulat ba sa book of life ang pangalan mo?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Sep 09, 2015 at 12:43 PM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:09 PM
(https://fbcdn-photos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/11923207_10153157244437507_7140938483647454742_n.png?oh=82cfae393873c1098c17a2fffc4bc2cf&oe=5672F367&__gda__=1449191121_75df4c7e19b946199cb55fc8ab8384e9)
Religion will say do this and do that , follow this and follow that in order to be saved and be accepted by God however God's message for the believers "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. "
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:18 PM
kakatawa ka sir, all along puro predestination ang nasa isip mo about pTrader..
In his quoted verses, sir dpogs underscored "book of life" and "from the foundation of the world."
You say you will not go to the topic of predestination?
Why don't you explain the meaning of the underscored "book of life" and "from the foundation of the world" without going to the topic of predestination and let's see.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:21 PM
In his quoted verses, sir dpogs underscored "book of life" and "from the foundation of the world."
You say you will not go to the topic of predestination?
Why don't you explain the meaning of the underscored "book of life" and "from the foundation of the world" without going to the topic of predestination and let's see.
and why can't you answer this directly:
since book of life yan, and again nakasulat ba sa book of life ang pangalan mo?
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:30 PM
If you choose not to answer any of my questions, ok lang, hindi na kita kukulitin sir.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:31 PM
Because I choose not to answer.
If you choose not to answer any of my questions, ok lang, hindi na kita kukulitin sir.
you choose not to answer because?
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:40 PM
Para fair, dapat tanungin din kita sir.
Is your name written in the Book of Life? ;)
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:44 PM
O, ako na naman ang tinanong?
Para fair, dapat tanungin din kita sir.
Is your name written in the Book of Life? ;)
Yes, by the grace of God.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:44 PM
Yes, by the grace of God.
your turn now..
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 01:50 PM
You also had the right to refuse to answer a question about yourself, so that's fair to both sides.
Now let's go to a topic that's not about you, but about the bible.
If a name is written in the Book of Life, when was it first written there? Is it possible for a name written in the Book of Life to be subsequently erased?
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 02:04 PM
It can't be my turn to answer a question about myself. I already chose not to answer a question about myself.
You also had the right to refuse to answer a question about yourself, so that's fair to both sides.
Now let's go to a question that's not about you, but about the bible.
If a name is written in the Book of Life, when was it first written there? Is it possible for a name written in the Book of Life to be subsequently erased?
sir, mababasa mo lahat ng doctrina ng lahat ng religion, secta at mga kagaya nito sir, magpalitan at magdebate about the Bible, still the questions are, Ako ba ay anak ng Dios, nakasulat ba ang pangalan ko sa aklat ng buhay?
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 02:08 PM
Since the foundation of the world, you were predestined to go to heaven, and it is impossible for you not to go to heaven.
Di ba ganon?
Buti ka pa sir... :D
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 02:31 PM
You mean your name has been written in the Book of Life since the foundation of the world, and it is impossible for your name to ever be erased from the Book of Life.
Since the foundation of the world, you were predestined to go to heaven, and it is impossible for you not to go to heaven.
Di ba ganon?
Buti ka pa sir... :D
Kung ang Dios matapos kang bigyan ng buhay na walang hanggan ay pabago bago ng isip, wala ni isa mang pangako Niya ang pwedeng panghawakan. Inde iyan ang Dios na ipinakilala ng Kasulatan.
Buti ka pa sir...
Inde "Buti ka pa sir...", naawa ang Dios sa akin at sa lahat ng hinirang Niya.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 09, 2015 at 03:27 PM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 05:30 PM
wow sir pTrader, you are really claiming na nakasulat ang name mo sa Book of Life. May I know how can you be so sure?
I am not claiming pero ibinilang sa mga taong iniligtas ng Panginoong Hesus.
Ang Dios kasi nagugusap sa atin at nagpapatunay sa atin ng ating kaligtasan at buhay na walang hanggan.
kung pano siya nangusap kay Zacchaeus, ganun di sa mga taong sinagip niya.
And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.
kung sinagip ka Niya kagaya ni Zacchaeus, ganun din malalaman mong isa ikaw sa tapagmana sa pamamagitan ng Dios.
sa Dios lahat ng kaluwalhatian, pagsamba at papuri.
Sapat ang Kasulatan para masagot ang katanungang "nakasulat ba ang pangalan ko sa aklat ng buhay?"
Ito ay pinatutunayan ng Dios sa Kanyang ginawa at ginagawa sa buhay mo.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 09, 2015 at 07:41 PM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 09, 2015 at 08:07 PM
I just really can't comprehend na alam ng isang tao na kasama na sya sa Book of Life at mapupunta sa langit habang siya ay buhay pa. Unless kausapin ka mismo ni God (at kung mapapatunayan mo na si God nga siya at hindi the Devil himself just in disguise) at sabihin na "pTrader, ang panagalan mo ay nakasulat na sa Libro ng Buhay at ikaw ay mapupunta sa Langit." Paano ang final judgement?
phil 4:3Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
yan verse na iyan, buhay pa sila pero alam na.
Inde nagbabago ang Dios even if sa panahon ngayon. Kung paano siya nangusap sa panahon ni Pablo ganun din ngayon.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 09, 2015 at 08:34 PM
phil 4:3Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
yan verse na iyan, buhay pa sila pero alam na.
Inde nagbabago ang Dios even if sa panahon ngayon. Kung paano siya nangusap sa panahon ni Pablo ganun din ngayon.
and you are righteous just like them? how did you know nga sir na nakasulat na nga nag name mo, as in yung ikaw, sa book of life? mabubura pa ba name mo dun? curious talaga ako.
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 09:15 PM
Inde "Buti ka pa sir...", naawa ang Dios sa akin at sa lahat ng hinirang Niya.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
Hindi ikaw ang kausap sa sitas na yan sir.
Ang kausap, mga Jewish Christians who are sojourners and exiles of the dispersion.
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:9-12)
The Israelites are the chosen race, and their race was based on bloodline.
The royal priesthood, the holy nation, and the people for His own possession refer to the people of Israel, the Jewish nation. Hindi kasama ang Pilipino doon.
That's why the Old Testament said:
On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. 2 They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel encamped before the mountain, 3 while Moses went up to God. The Lord called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Exo. 9:1-6)
In the above-quoted 1 Peter 2:12, the Jews are advised to keep their conduct among the Gentiles honorable, because they are not Gentiles, they are Jews.
In the above-quoted 1 Peter 2:11, the Jews are called sojourners and exiles because they are in exile and sojourning in various Roman provinces.
That is why Peter's letter starts this way:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1)
Hindi ka kasama diyan sir. You are not a Jewish Christian exile of the dispersion living in the various provinces of ancient Rome.
Mahilig ka lang mang-angkin ng hindi sa iyo.
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 09:26 PM
kung pano siya nangusap kay Zacchaeus, ganun di sa mga taong sinagip niya.
And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.
kung sinagip ka Niya kagaya ni Zacchaeus, ganun din malalaman mong isa ikaw sa tapagmana sa pamamagitan ng Dios.
... Today salvation has come to this house.
Zacchaeus repented of his sins. Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house..."
When did salvation come to this house? Today. Not before the foundation of the world. It came today.
Why today? Because Zacchaeus repented today. That's free will, not predestination.
Sinagip si Zacchaeus, hindi ikaw.
Paanong nalaman ni Zacchaeus? Kasi sinabi ni Kristo.
Si Zacchaeus ba mismo ang nagsabi na ligtas ang sarili niya? Hindi. Si Kristo ang nagsabi.
Ikaw naman sir, sino ang nagsabi na ang pangalan mo ay nasa Book of Life? Si Kristo, o ikaw lang mismo?
Post by: barrister on Sep 09, 2015 at 09:55 PM
phil 4:3Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
yan verse na iyan, buhay pa sila pero alam na.
Did the women, Clement and the rest of the fellow workers themselves say that their own names were in the Book of Life? No, it was Paul who said that, not the workers themselves.
How did Paul know? Because it was revealed to Paul, who is an apostle to the Gentiles.
Even if the workers' names were written in the Book of Life at the time, not even Paul had knowledge of whether or not their names will be blotted out from the Book of Life in the end.
In your case, was it Paul the apostle who said your name is written in the Book of Life?
No, it was you yourself who made that claim.
According to your belief, your name has been written in the Book of Life since the foundation of the world, and it will be impossible for your name to be ever blotted out from it.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 10, 2015 at 11:03 AM
and you are righteous just like them? how did you know nga sir na nakasulat na nga nag name mo, as in yung ikaw, sa book of life? mabubura pa ba name mo dun? curious talaga ako.
Dahil sa awa at habag ng Dios at sa pamamagitan ni Cristo ako ay naligtas.
Ang mensahe sa mga manampalataya ay ganito:
John 3:16“For God so loved the world,i that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Rom 8:1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.a 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death
Rom 8:14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sonsf of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 10, 2015 at 11:09 AM
Sinagip si Zacchaeus, hindi ikaw.
Paanong nalaman ni Zacchaeus? Kasi sinabi ni Kristo.
Si Zacchaeus ba mismo ang nagsabi na ligtas ang sarili niya? Hindi. Si Kristo ang nagsabi.
Ikaw naman sir, sino ang nagsabi na ang pangalan mo ay nasa Book of Life? Si Kristo, o ikaw lang mismo?
Rom 8:14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sonsf of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God
can such belief determine that his name is written in the book of life? No.
An this is the answer: The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God
Post by: panzimus on Sep 10, 2015 at 03:48 PM
Post by: Hammerheart on Sep 10, 2015 at 04:11 PM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 10, 2015 at 04:27 PM
But sir pTrader, those verses still doesn't confirm if you are indeed in the Book of Life. Kailan naisulat ang pangalan mi dun at sino ang nagsabi na andun ang pangalan mo?
magandang tanong, na tinanong ko rin sa sarili ko nung una
John 3:
16“For God so loved the world,i that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Romans 8:9You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
Rev20:
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them.
12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
13And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
14Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Rev 20:
11At nakita ko ang isang malaking luklukang maputi, at ang nakaluklok doon, na sa kaniyang harapan, ang lupa at ang langit ay tumakas; at walang nasumpungang kalalagyan nila.
12At nakita ko ang mga patay, malalaki at maliliit, na nangakatayo sa harapan ng luklukan; at nangabuksan ang mga aklat: at nabuksan ang ibang aklat, na siyang aklat ng buhay: at ang mga patay ay hinatulan ayon sa mga bagay na nasusulat sa mga aklat, ayon sa kanilang mga gawa.
13At ibinigay ng dagat ang mga patay na nasa kaniya; at ibinigay ng kamatayan at ng Hades ang mga patay na nasa kanila: at sila'y hinatulan bawa't tao ayon sa kanikaniyang mga gawa.
14At ang kamatayan at ang Hades ay ibinulid sa dagatdagatang apoy. Ito ang ikalawang kamatayan, sa makatuwid ay ang dagatdagatang apoy.
15At kung ang sinoman ay hindi nasumpungang nakasulat sa aklat ng buhay, ay ibinulid sa dagatdagatang apoy.
Rom 8:1Ngayon nga'y wala nang anomang hatol sa mga na kay Cristo Jesus. 2Sapagka't ang kautusan ng Espiritu ng buhay na kay Cristo Jesus ay pinalaya ako sa kautusan ng kasalanan at ng kamatayan.
Kung ako ay isang nanampalataya kay Cristo at pinalaya na ako sa kautusan ng kasalanan at ng kamatayan (Ngayon nga'y wala nang anomang hatol sa mga na kay Cristo Jesus), mararanasan ko pa ba ang hatol ng kamatayan sa sinabi sa aklat Pahayag?
Ito ang nagpapatunay sa lahat ng manampalataya na tunay nga na yung pangalan nila ay nakasulat sa Aklat ng Buhay.
Kinalaro ng Panginoong Jesus na ang sinomang sa kaniya'y sumampalataya ay huwag mapahamak, kundi magkaroon ng buhay na walang hanggan na ang sumasampalataya sa kaniya ay hindi hinahatulan.
At pina-ulit muli kay Pablo na nag sabi na: Ngayon nga'y wala nang anomang hatol sa mga na kay Cristo Jesus. Sapagka't ang kautusan ng Espiritu ng buhay na kay Cristo Jesus ay pinalaya ako sa kautusan ng kasalanan at ng kamatayan.
Post by: barrister on Sep 10, 2015 at 04:46 PM
(http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz44/jalaba/image.jpg1_zpsjryzxvv8.jpg)
Did you make an effort to confirm if this Rob Zombie quote is genuine or fake before posting?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 10, 2015 at 05:23 PM
Correct me sir barrister if i got it wrong.
Post by: barrister on Sep 10, 2015 at 06:04 PM
During your lifetime, you can receive salvation, but you can also lose it during your lifetime.
Malinaw naman yata kay sir pTrader ang kaibahan ng beliefs namin. Tapos na yata kami, parang hindi na talaga puwedeng ma-reconclie ang kaibahan.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 10, 2015 at 06:37 PM
Tama yon sir.
During your lifetime, you can receive salvation, but you can also lose it during your lifetime.
Malinaw naman yata kay sir pTrader ang kaibahan ng beliefs namin. Tapos na yata kami, parang hindi na talaga puwedeng ma-reconclie ang kaibahan.
Malinaw sir at nahubog ako sa ganyan paniniwala before.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 10, 2015 at 07:11 PM
If predestination is true, then what's the point of preaching and practicing? Is your God giving false hope?
Post by: Timithekid on Sep 11, 2015 at 04:24 AM
During your lifetime, you can receive salvation, but you can also lose it during your lifetime.
I'm a firm believer of this, I cannot fathom the concept of being born and not being in the book of life due to predestination and yet some jerk out there gets to have his cake and eat it too.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 11, 2015 at 05:06 AM
I'm a firm believer of this, I cannot fathom the concept of being born and not being in the book of life due to predestination and yet some jerk out there gets to have his cake and eat it too.
Ever since namulat tayo dito sa mundo naturuan na tayo ng ating mga magulang/pari/etc ng ganito:
- "Huwag kang gagawa ng masama pupunta ka sa impiyerno, gumawa ka ng mabuti para di ka mapunta sa impiyerno."
- "Papunta ka ba ng langit? Napaka righteous mo naman at nasabi mo na papunta ka ng langit."
- "Walang nakakaaalam kung sino pupunta ng impiyerno at kung sino pupunta ng langit, Diyos lang ang nakakaalam niya."
Eto ang mga turong nakamulatan na natin. Some religion use this para hawak nila sa leeg mga member nila.
Ngunit kung susuriin natin ang Bibiliya, ikaw mismo malalaman mo na pupunta ka sa langit.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. I John 5:13 KJV
going to heaven is not a matter of how righteous we are here in earth, we are born naturally as sinner. Unless we are born again in spirit God will never recognize our rigteousness here in earth.
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:2-6
The law of nature is that we are born once physically from the womb of our mother. No man was born physically twice. The same law applies pagdating sa pagiging born again in spirit. you can only be born spiritually once. if its a losing salvation, you need to be born again and again and again and again.
Once you were born again in Christ, you will be a new creature. from being son of Adam (unrighteous before God) to being son of God (righteous before God).
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. II Cor. 5:17-21
Post by: barrister on Sep 11, 2015 at 09:20 AM
Ngunit kung susuriin natin ang Bibiliya, ikaw mismo malalaman mo na pupunta ka sa langit.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. I John 5:13 KJV
If you believe in the name of the Son of God, you know that you have eternal life.
You have the promise of eternal life now, but that does not mean that you will never lose eternal life. It means you have salvation now, if you die now. It is not a guarantee that you will never lose your salvation no matter what you do in the future.
What does believing in the name of Jesus Christ mean?
A name refers to authority. If a policeman arrests you in the name of the law, it means he arrests you under the authority of the law.
If you believe in the name of Jesus Christ, it means you submit yourself to the authority of Jesus Christ.
Let's look at your cited verse again, but this time, starting from verse 12:
12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:12-13)
We say you believe in the name of the Son if you have the Son in you. The Son is in you if you submit yourself to His authority by keeping His commands. That is why John says in chapter 2:
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3-6)
Therefore, believing in Christ means keeping the commands of Christ. You have salvation if you follow His commands. But you must continue following His commands, otherwise you will lose your salvation.
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:1-5)
If you believe in the name of Christ, you submit to His authority. If you submit to His authority, you follow his commands. If you follow His commands, you have salvation and you are a branch of the true vine.
But being a branch of the true vine has a condition --- you must remain in the vine. If you do not continue keeping His commands, you do not remain in the vine, you are cut off and thrown away into the fire.
You do not have salvation forever. Fail to keep His commands and you will lose that salvation. You are cut off and thrown away. In the end, you will be thrown into the fire.
Hindi mahirap intindihin yan. Pinapahirap mo lang... ;)
Post by: barrister on Sep 11, 2015 at 11:47 AM
The law of nature is that we are born once physically from the womb of our mother. No man was born physically twice. The same law applies pagdating sa pagiging born again in spirit. you can only be born spiritually once. if its a losing salvation, you need to be born again and again and again and again.
It's true that physical birth is only once, and spiritual birth is only once.
However, just because you are spiritually reborn, it does not mean you will never spiritually die. In the same manner, just because you were physically born, it does not mean you will never physically die.
Even if you were once saved, once you sin unto death, you can no longer be born again. In fact, the bible says that you should not pray for a brother or sister who sinned unto death:
16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (1 John 5:16-17)
John calls them brother or sister because they were born again, and they became brothers and sisters in the faith, not literal brothers and sisters.
After they were born again, they can lose their salvation if they sin unto death. Once they lose their salvation, they can no longer be born again, since being born again can only happen once.
That is why John says pray only for those brethren who sin not unto death; do not pray for those brethren who sin unto death because it will be useless. They cannot have a second spiritual rebirth.
Therefore, while it is true that you can only be born again once, it is not true that salvation cannot be lost.
That is why the bible says:
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2:20-22)
They have escaped the corruption of the world. They were washed. The sacred command was passed on to them. They were no longer entangled in the corruption of the world. It means they were previously born again. They were saved. Yet they lost their salvation.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. (Heb. 6:4-6)
Note how these people are described:
- once enlightened
- tasted the heavenly gift
- shared in the Holy Spirit
- tasted the goodness of the word of God
- tasted the powers of the coming age
Of course these people were born again. These are not newly born again persons, they are mature Christians who were even commanded to "move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ" (Heb. 6:1).
Yet the verses explain that if they fall away, it will be impossible for them to be brought back to repentance.
Why? Because they were once born again, and they once received salvation, but they fell away and sinned unto death.
Now that they have lost their salvation, repentance is now useless because they can no longer be forgiven. They can't be born again for the 2nd time. Do not pray for them, said John.
That is why Revelation says:
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still (Rev. 22:11)
What do we do with those who have lost their salvation? Leave them. Let them continue in their wickedness.
Walang "born again and again and again" diyan.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 11, 2015 at 01:13 PM
Yes, 1 physical birth. 1 spiritual birth. I think baka what atty. bro Barrister meant was the salvation is still there. Ang problem lang siguro with us mere mortals is despite our salvation, we still sin. And sin separates us from God. So in effect, the offer of God for salvation is still there (hindi nawala ang salvation) BUT tayo ang bumibitaw sa salvation because of our sins. Hindi Diyos ang hindi nagbigay ng salvation pero tayo ang "bumitaw" sa salvation because of our inherent free will to sin. But then our God is always a forgiving God and is always ready to forgive us we are already adopted sons depending on our sincerity in asking for forgiveness.
Post by: barrister on Sep 11, 2015 at 01:20 PM
But then our God is always a forgiving God and is always ready to forgive us we are already adopted sons depending on our sincerity in asking for forgiveness.
No, it's not true that God is always ready to forgive us.
Kung totoo yon, bakit may unpardonable sin? That wouldn't make sense.
Kung totoo yon, bakit may impiyerno pa? Pag ihahagis ka na sa impiyerno, ask for forgiveness, and God, who is always ready to forgive you, will forgive you.
E di wala nang pupunta sa impiyerno. Lahat hihingi ng tawad, lahat patatwarin, e di dapat wala nang impiyerno.
Ano yon, arte lang, tinakot lang pero hindi naman pala tutuluyan? O may limit pala ang patawad ng Diyos, at hindi totoo na God will always forgive us.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 01:22 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 11, 2015 at 01:25 PM
No, it's not true that God is always ready to forgive us.
Kung totoo yon, bakit may unpardonable sin? That wouldn't make sense.
Kung totoo yon, bakit may impiyerno pa? Pag ihahagis ka na sa impiyerno, ask for forgiveness, and God, who is always ready to forgive you, will forgive you.
E di wala nang pupunta sa impiyerno. Lahat hihingi ng tawad, lahat patatwarin, e di dapat wala nang impiyerno.
Ano yon, arte lang, tinakot lang pero hindi naman pala tutuluyan? O may limit pala ang patawad ng Diyos, at hindi totoo na God will always forgive us.
Ah yes sir. Yun unpardonable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and yun repetitive sin sa OT na walang offering.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 02:34 PM
Kawawa naman yung mabait na wala sa book of life at swerte nung loko loko na andun ;D
If predestination is true, then what's the point of preaching and practicing? Is your God giving false hope?
sir may mabait ba talaga? kung anong bawal siyang ginagawa, lahat naman tayo quilty diyan at mabait ba yun?
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 11, 2015 at 02:44 PM
Mabuti pa si Santa Claus, bibigyan ka ng gift if you're nice.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 11, 2015 at 02:56 PM
It's true that physical birth is only once, and spiritual birth is only once.
However, just because you are spiritually reborn, it does not mean you will never spiritually die. In the same manner, just because you were physically born, it does not mean you will never physically die.
As we can only be born physically once, we are going to die physically once. The same when it comes to spiritual birth only once and spiritual death only once.
Why we need to be born again spiritually, because we are dead spiritually.
During our physical birth, sin of Adam was passed unto us, thus we are dead spiritually.
During our spiritual birth, sin of Adam was taken away from us, and Holy Spirit now lives within us, within our heart.
When we become born again, we are already spiritually alive, and the blood of Jesus Christ washed our sins. and as promised by God, our sins He will remember no more because what God see in us is not our sins anymore but the blood of Jesus Christ.
Even if you were once saved, once you sin unto death, you can no longer be born again. In fact, the bible says that you should not pray for a brother or sister who sinned unto death:
16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (1 John 5:16-17)
John calls them brother or sister because they were born again, and they became brothers and sisters in the faith, not literal brothers and sisters.
After they were born again, they can lose their salvation if they sin unto death. Once they lose their salvation, they can no longer be born again, since being born again can only happen once.
Since we already born again spiritually from being spiritually dead then we didnt have to die again spiritually. one explanation here is that the "sin unto death" here means physical death not spiritual death, remember our God is our father and kapag nagkakamali tayo at patuloy na nagkakasala He will chastise us for us to be able to learn. If not, then His ultimate chastisement for His children is to bring them to heaven already para di na maging stumbling block dito sa lupa. God chastisment is only applicable to His children or born again.
The same thing that happened to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10)
That is why John says pray only for those brethren who sin not unto death; do not pray for those brethren who sin unto death because it will be useless. They cannot have a second spiritual rebirth.
Therefore, while it is true that you can only be born again once, it is not true that salvation cannot be lost.
That is why the bible says:
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2:20-22)
As you will notice here, they were not referred as "sheep" but "dog" and "sow or pig". Nahugasan lang na baboy but never been a sheep. This is what we called self righteous people as pharisess and scribe during those times. The same thing happened to Judas. Judas knows Jesus Christ, Judas knows the way of righteousness, an Apostle, a friend of Jesus, can cast away devil in Jesus name, can heal sickness... but never was a "sheep" but just a "washed pig".
They have escaped the corruption of the world. They were washed. The sacred command was passed on to them. They were no longer entangled in the corruption of the world. It means they were previously born again. They were saved. Yet they lost their salvation.
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. (Heb. 6:4-6)
Note how these people are described:
- once enlightened
- tasted the heavenly gift
- shared in the Holy Spirit
- tasted the goodness of the word of God
- tasted the powers of the coming age
Of course these people were born again. These are not newly born again persons, they are mature Christians who were even commanded to "move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ" (Heb. 6:1).
Yet the verses explain that if they fall away, it will be impossible for them to be brought back to repentance.
Why? Because they were once born again, and they once received salvation, but they fell away and sinned unto death.
Now that they have lost their salvation, repentance is now useless because they can no longer be forgiven. They can't be born again for the 2nd time. Do not pray for them, said John.
That is why Revelation says:
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still (Rev. 22:11)
What do we do with those who have lost their salvation? Leave them. Let them continue in their wickedness.
Walang "born again and again and again" diyan.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 03:29 PM
It's true that physical birth is only once, and spiritual birth is only once.
However, just because you are spiritually reborn, it does not mean you will never spiritually die. In the same manner, just because you were physically born, it does not mean you will never physically die.
Even if you were once saved, once you sin unto death, you can no longer be born again. In fact, the bible says that you should not pray for a brother or sister who sinned unto death:
16 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death. (1 John 5:16-17)
John calls them brother or sister because they were born again, and they became brothers and sisters in the faith, not literal brothers and sisters.
After they were born again, they can lose their salvation if they sin unto death. Once they lose their salvation, they can no longer be born again, since being born again can only happen once.
That is why John says pray only for those brethren who sin not unto death; do not pray for those brethren who sin unto death because it will be useless. They cannot have a second spiritual rebirth.
Therefore, while it is true that you can only be born again once, it is not true that salvation cannot be lost.
16If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.
John calls them brother or sister because they were born again, and they became brothers and sisters in the faith, not literal brothers and sisters.
Will there be death for those born of God if John himself said '18We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him."
Will there be death for those who are born of God if John himself said "4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God."
going back to the verse:
16If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.
17All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.
The instructions was given to the believer (If anyone ) by John. If we are saying that "his brother committing a sin" is born of God then why then God will give him life? We know for sure that those who are born of God has life already.
It may seem as the "brother" can be a fellow believer or those who are born of God and yet Did John identified them as those who are bon of God?
And yet how can death overcome the one born of God, if he is an overcomes the world?
4for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
And how can death overcome the one born of God, if he is protected and the evil one cannot harm him?
18We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 04:17 PM
The point is, under your belief, one cannot hope to go to heaven if his name is not on the list, which apparently, written before the beginning of time.
Mabuti pa si Santa Claus, bibigyan ka ng gift if you're nice.
Ikaw lang po at ikaw lang po ang nakaka-alam ng position mo sa harap ng Dios? Kung sino ka sa harap ng Dios at ano ang Dios sa harap mo?
Pero ang pag-asa ay nasa Mabuting Balita, manampalaya ka kay Jesus Christ.
Inde natin alam kung sino-sino yung hinahanap na tupa, maaring sinoman sa atin..
The point is, under your belief, one cannot hope to go to heaven
Kahit pa kaninong belief ang marininig mo please don't lose hope, unless sinabe mismo ng Dios na wala ka nang pag-asa.
Kina-usap ka na ba ng Dios o kina-usap mo na ba ang Dios tungkol sa pag-asa na iyan?
Marami ang nagsasabi kami lang ang ligtas, kayo papuntang impiyerno kami puntang langit , kung wala ka sa church namin wala kang kaligtasan, pero ano ba talaga ang sinasabe sa iyo ng Dios mismo?
Mahalga po na malaman natin mismo ang sinasabe sa atin ng Dios sa atin sa buhay natin?
Sinabe Niya na makasalanan tayo at kailangan mag repent, hinge po tayo ng kapatawaran sa Dios at magsisi.
Sinabe niya na sumampalataya tao sa bugtong na Anak Niya na si JesuCrsito, manapalataya po tayo.
Mabuti pa si Santa Claus, bibigyan ka ng gift if you're nice.
Romans 3:10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Kung nalalaman ni Santa Claus yan, mayroon kayang gift na naibigay mula pa ng namimigay ng gift si Santa Claus? Baka si Santa Claus wal ring gift para sa kanya.
Marami pong batuhan at posting dito concerning forum member's faith and belief, marami tayong matututunan pero ano ba ang mensahe ng Dios sa iyo sa ikaliligtas ng iyung kaluluwa?
Post by: barrister on Sep 11, 2015 at 04:44 PM
As we can only be born physically once, we are going to die physically once. The same when it comes to spiritual birth only once and spiritual death only once.
Why we need to be born again spiritually, because we are dead spiritually.
You mean because a person is spiritually dead, it means he was previously spiritually born (spiritual birth #1). Then when he is born again from above, it means he is spiritually born for the second time (spiritual birth #2).
Hindi ganon yon sir.
You were born physically, that's birth #1. When you are born again, that's birth #2, which is spiritual birth #1.
It's called born again because it's the 2nd birth, not the 2nd spiritual birth.
Being born again is the 2nd birth if you don't specify what kind of birth. But when you specify "spiritual," being born again is the 1st spiritual birth.
Why 1st spiritual birth? Because it's the first time he was born of water and the Spirit.
Since we already born again spiritually from being spiritually dead then we didnt have to die again spiritually. one explanation here is that the "sin unto death" here means physical death not spiritual death, remember our God is our father and kapag nagkakamali tayo at patuloy na nagkakasala He will chastise us for us to be able to learn. If not, then His ultimate chastisement for His children is to bring them to heaven already para di na maging stumbling block dito sa lupa. God chastisment is only applicable to His children or born again.
The same thing that happened to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10)
1 John 5:16-17 is talking about the unpardonable sin. There are sins that are pardonable, called sins not unto death. There are sins that are unpardonable, which are sins unto death.
The unpardonable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Did Ananias and Sapphira blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? To answer that, you must first be able to define what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit means.
Read Acts 5 again, and you will notice that it never says God killed Ananias and Sapphira. Peter didn't kill them either. All it says is that they fell and died. They could have both died naturally from heart attacks due to the stress of being discovered. There's simply no way to say for sure.
Peter did not predict Ananias' death. Peter did not predict Sapphira's death either; Peter only said the men will carry her out, without specifying if she will be carried out dead, or merely unconscious.
Physical death happens to all of us, whether saved or unsaved, good or bad. If physical death happens to all, why would sinning unto death mean physical death? That wouldn't make sense.
If sinning unto death means physical death, what if all my sins are sins not unto death, and I never commit sins unto death. It means I will never physically die? You see how nonsensical that belief would be.
As you will notice here, they were not referred as "sheep" but "dog" and "sow or pig". Nahugasan lang na baboy but never been a sheep. This is what we called self righteous people as pharisess and scribe during those times. The same thing happened to Judas. Judas knows Jesus Christ, Judas knows the way of righteousness, an Apostle, a friend of Jesus, can cast away devil in Jesus name, can heal sickness... but never was a "sheep" but just a "washed pig".
The dog and the pig are analogies. Analogies are relevant only to the specific point being discussed.
When a person returns to his evil ways after he was born again, he is referred to as a dog who returns to his own vomit or a sow who returns to the mud.
The issue is limited to the act of returning to a person's former evil ways. It does not cover the situation before backsliding. It does not cover the issue of predestination.
When a person is born again and follows the commands of Christ, he is referred to as sheep. When he backslides, the same person is referred to as a dog or sow. It doesn't mean he was always a dog or sow, it only means he is a dog or sow after he backslid.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 11, 2015 at 05:20 PM
2 birth: physical and spiritual birth
1 death: physical death
If you're not born again
1 birth: physical birth
2 death: physical and spiritual death
No man can enter heaven unless that man is born of Spirit. Why he need to be born again because man is spiritually dead. If a man have born again and then lost his salvation them he died spiritually two times.
Adam passed his sin to all men, thus we are already dead spiritually since nagkamalay tayo. That is why we need to be born agaim spirotually.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 05:59 PM
Quote
1 John 5:16-17 is talking about the unpardonable sin. There are sins that are pardonable, called sins not unto death. There are sins that are unpardonable, which are sins unto death.
Can unpardonable sin operate and sins unto death to those who are born of God?
Answer: No, read the proofs below.
1 John 5:4For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 john 5:18We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.
1 John 3:6No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 7Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 07:01 PM
Quote
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:1-5)
If you believe in the name of Christ, you submit to His authority. If you submit to His authority, you follow his commands. If you follow His commands, you have salvation and you are a branch of the true vine.
But being a branch of the true vine has a condition --- you must remain in the vine. If you do not continue keeping His commands, you do not remain in the vine, you are cut off and thrown away into the fire.
You do not have salvation forever. Fail to keep His commands and you will lose that salvation. You are cut off and thrown away. In the end, you will be thrown into the fire.
You do not have salvation forever. Fail to keep His commands and you will lose that salvation. You are cut off and thrown away. In the end, you will be thrown into the fire.
1 john 3:9No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Such failure can occur only for those who are not born of God, for God's seed abides in him who are born of God.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 07:19 PM
Quote
That is why the bible says:
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2:20-22)
They have escaped the corruption of the world. They were washed. The sacred command was passed on to them. They were no longer entangled in the corruption of the world. It means they were previously born again. They were saved. Yet they lost their salvation.
Born again ba sila o born of God ba sila?
Answer: No,
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’sb seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 11, 2015 at 08:32 PM
Quote
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. (Heb. 6:4-6)
Note how these people are described:
- once enlightened
- tasted the heavenly gift
- shared in the Holy Spirit
- tasted the goodness of the word of God
- tasted the powers of the coming age
Of course these people were born again. These are not newly born again persons, they are mature Christians who were even commanded to "move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ" (Heb. 6:1).
Yet the verses explain that if they fall away, it will be impossible for them to be brought back to repentance.
Why? Because they were once born again, and they once received salvation, but they fell away and sinned unto death.
Now that they have lost their salvation, repentance is now useless because they can no longer be forgiven. They can't be born again for the 2nd time. Do not pray for them, said John.
Are those people born again or born of God?
The answer is :NO
18We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.
Note how these people are described:
- once enlightened
- tasted the heavenly gift
- shared in the Holy Spirit
- tasted the goodness of the word of God
- tasted the powers of the coming age
All of the verbs use are past tense. There is no falling away for those who are born of God, for there are continuity in their life of not sinning.
Heb 6:7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
Same rain:
- once enlightened
- tasted the heavenly gift
- shared in the Holy Spirit
- tasted the goodness of the word of God
- tasted the powers of the coming age
has been poured.
And yet there are land that produces thorns and thistles and these are those people.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 11, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Ikaw lang po at ikaw lang po ang nakaka-alam ng position mo sa harap ng Dios? Kung sino ka sa harap ng Dios at ano ang Dios sa harap mo?
Pero ang pag-asa ay nasa Mabuting Balita, manampalaya ka kay Jesus Christ.
Inde natin alam kung sino-sino yung hinahanap na tupa, maaring sinoman sa atin..
The point is, under your belief, one cannot hope to go to heaven
Kahit pa kaninong belief ang marininig mo please don't lose hope, unless sinabe mismo ng Dios na wala ka nang pag-asa.
Kina-usap ka na ba ng Dios o kina-usap mo na ba ang Dios tungkol sa pag-asa na iyan?
Marami ang nagsasabi kami lang ang ligtas, kayo papuntang impiyerno kami puntang langit , kung wala ka sa church namin wala kang kaligtasan, pero ano ba talaga ang sinasabe sa iyo ng Dios mismo?
Mahalga po na malaman natin mismo ang sinasabe sa atin ng Dios sa atin sa buhay natin?
Sinabe Niya na makasalanan tayo at kailangan mag repent, hinge po tayo ng kapatawaran sa Dios at magsisi.
Sinabe niya na sumampalataya tao sa bugtong na Anak Niya na si JesuCrsito, manapalataya po tayo.
Mabuti pa si Santa Claus, bibigyan ka ng gift if you're nice.
Romans 3:10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Kung nalalaman ni Santa Claus yan, mayroon kayang gift na naibigay mula pa ng namimigay ng gift si Santa Claus? Baka si Santa Claus wal ring gift para sa kanya.
Marami pong batuhan at posting dito concerning forum member's faith and belief, marami tayong matututunan pero ano ba ang mensahe ng Dios sa iyo sa ikaliligtas ng iyung kaluluwa?
What I was asking about is predestination. I think you misunderstood my question.
Post by: barrister on Sep 12, 2015 at 11:25 AM
If you're born again
2 birth: physical and spiritual birth
1 death: physical death
If you're not born again
1 birth: physical birth
2 death: physical and spiritual death
No man can enter heaven unless that man is born of Spirit. Why he need to be born again because man is spiritually dead. If a man have born again and then lost his salvation them he died spiritually two times.
Adam passed his sin to all men, thus we are already dead spiritually since nagkamalay tayo. That is why we need to be born agaim spirotually.
You're saying spiritual death can only happen once? That's not biblical.
You're saying a man who has not yet been born again is spiritually dead; when he is born again, he becomes spiritually alive; after he becomes spiritually alive, he cannot spiritually die again? That's not biblical.
and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree... thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree (Rom. 11:17, 24)
They were wild olive branches --- They were once spiritually dead. The wild olive branches were cut from the wild olive tree, then grafted to the good olive tree --- Now, they are spiritually alive.
Once dead, now alive. Once not part of the good tree, now part of the good tree.
You're saying the grafted olive branch can no longer be cut off from the good tree?
That's not correct. The grafted branches can still be cut off from the good tree:
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. (Rom. 11:20-22)
They received salvation when they were born again. But salvation came with a condition --- if thou continue in His goodness. The condition is that they must abide in Christ.
If they do not abide in Christ, what happens? --- They will be cut off.
That's free will. Not predestination, not "eternal security," not "Once Saved Always Saved."
Post by: rusty on Sep 14, 2015 at 03:29 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/half-of-former-catholics-have-forsaken-religion-altogether_55e893f4e4b0b7a9633c4b1a
Post by: dpogs on Sep 14, 2015 at 06:06 AM
the question is are those branches bearing no fruits a true born again or a wolf in sheepskin?
the question is are those branches bearing no fruits a true born again or just a washed pig?
Note: even in parable when Jesus is referring to born again people He always called them "sheep", once you're a sheep there is no way you can be a pig again. You may have the power of healing, you may have the wisdom of the word of God, you may have righteousness in you, but if you're still a pig, you're just a washed up pig and later on you will go to the same mud. But if you're a sheep, no matter what happens you will follow Jesus voice and follow His commandments.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:4-6
the word is "abide" - the question is how to abide in Jesus Christ? is it thru by works or by faith/grace alone?
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. Romans 11:6
How Jesus can abide in us? because without Jesus we cannot bear fruits. Branches never bear fruits, the vine is.
If Jesus doenst abide in us then we cant bear fruits and you will be cast in to the fire since Jesus is not abiding in you.
Once Jesus abide in us then we bear fruits, if we bear fruits, you will not be cast of. Obviously, those who didnt bear fruits will be cast of since Jesus is not abiding in them.
Those who abide in Jesus never sin.
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:1-9
The question is : those branches that was cast on fire, are they born of God? is Jesus abides in them?
They dont have the tree vine - Jesus, that is why they need to be cut off.
Post by: barrister on Sep 14, 2015 at 10:39 AM
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. John 15:4-6
the word is "abide" - the question is how to abide in Jesus Christ? is it thru by works or by faith/grace alone?
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. Romans 11:6
How Jesus can abide in us? because without Jesus we cannot bear fruits. Branches never bear fruits, the vine is.
If Jesus doenst abide in us then we cant bear fruits and you will be cast in to the fire since Jesus is not abiding in you.
Once Jesus abide in us then we bear fruits, if we bear fruits, you will not be cast of. Obviously, those who didnt bear fruits will be cast of since Jesus is not abiding in them.
What does abiding in Christ mean? Abiding means remaining. Abiding in Christ means remaining in Christ's love. We remain in Christ's love if we keep Christ's commandments:
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:10)
We don't abide in Christ's love by faith alone. We abide by faith and keeping Christ's commandments.
Keeping Christ's commandments is work, not faith alone. Therefore, it cannot be faith alone. It is faith plus works.
First, you abide in Christ, then Christ abides in you.
Notice that the process has a proper order. Christ doesn't abide in you first. You abide in Christ first, then Christ abides in you:
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:4-6)
If the branch abides in the vine, the branch receives nourishment from the vine. If the branch does not abide in the vine, it does not receive nourishment from the vine, is cut off and withers; they are gathered and burned in the fire.
First, you keep Christ's commandments. That's work.
If you keep Christ's commandments, we say you abide in His love or remain in His love. When you abide in Him, He abides in you. First, the branch is grafted, then it receives nourishment. That's the proper order, not the other way around.
If you do not abide or remain in Him, He will not remain in you.
Therefore, the choice is up to you. It's your choice to remain or not to remain in Christ. That's free will, not predestination.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:00 AM
What I was asking about is predestination. I think you misunderstood my question.
eto yung kalalagayan ng tao:
Romans 3:10as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
how can someone hope in God, if God is really rejected by all?
Sa ganyan kalalagayan ng tao, walang maliligtas.
Yung mga batang namatay bigyan yan mo ng pagkakataong mabuhay still they will continue sinning.
Yung mga baliw, bigyan mo ng katinuan still they will continue sinning.
Yung mga na abort, bigyan na mo ng pagkakataong mabuhay ganun din pagkakasala pa rin.
Ginawa ng Dios na dumami ang tao:
26From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
Sa pag-asang hahanapin nila ang Dios:
27God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.
Pero uulitin ko:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Sa ganitong kalalagayan wala ni isa mang tao ang maliligtas. Wala sa Dios ang pag-asa nila.
God predestine people, write their names in the Book of Life para mula sa nabuhay at nangabubuhay mapatawad, magkaroon ng buhay na walng hanggan ganun din ng pagasa.
The point is, under your belief, one cannot hope to go to heaven if his name is not on the list, which apparently, written before the beginning of time.
Mabuti pa si Santa Claus, bibigyan ka ng gift if you're nice.
Question, saan ba nakasalig yung hope na sinasabi na yan.
Kung walang na isulat na pangalan, walng maliligtas ni isa mang tao.
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:09 AM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:13 AM
Yun nga, kung predestined ka, kahit pumatay ka pa ng 1M, ligtas ka pa rin. At kahit magpakabuti ka, kung wala ka sa list, sorry ka na lang.
Saan nakasalig yung kabutihan na yun sir?
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Post by: barrister on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:32 AM
Those who abide in Jesus never sin.
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:1-9
The question is : those branches that was cast on fire, are they born of God? is Jesus abides in them?
They dont have the tree vine - Jesus, that is why they need to be cut off.
First of all, you are quoting a mistranslation. That's another example of KJV inaccuracy.
It is not correct to say that those who abide in Jesus "never sin." In fact, 1 John itself emphasized that those who make that claim are lying:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:8-10)
1 John 3:6& 9 do not mean to say that they do not sin. Those verses simply mean that they do not continue to sin.
Therefore, they can still commit sin; however they will not habitually, continually sin. Thus, the NIV renders the verses more accurately:
6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. ... 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. (1 John 1:6&9)
=======================================
Let's discuss verse 6 first.
"Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not," says the KJV. Correctly translated, it means those who remain in Him do not habitually or continually sin.
We abide or remain in Christ by keeping his commandments. See Reply # 1719 above.
Therefore, it means that those who keep Christ's commandments do not continue to sin. They can still commit sin, but they will not be habitually sinning.
This is only logical. You're following His commandments, that's why you're not habitually sinning.
Your act of following Christ's commandments is an act of free choice. It is not a predestined condition that makes it impossible for you to sin. It is your free choice of following His commandments that results in your free choice of refusing to habitually sin.
=======================================
Now for verse 9.
The KJV says: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him." Correctly translated, it means those who are "born of God" do not habitually or continually sin.
What does it mean to be born of God? It means abiding or remaining in God. It is a free act of remaning, not a predestined condition of being born of God.
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1 John 5:1)
When you believe in Christ, you are born of God. Do not reverse the order. First you believe, then we say you are born of God.
What do we mean when we say we believe in Christ? It means we keep the commands of Christ.
12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:12-13)
If you believe in the name of the Son, then you have the Son in you.
And the Son is in you if you submit yourself to His authority by keeping His commands:
We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3-6)
When you believe in Christ, you are born of God. Believing in Christ means keeping the commands of Christ. Therefore, being "born of God" simply means keeping the commands of Christ.
Now verse 9 becomes clear.
If you are born of God, it means you keep the commands of Christ. If you keep the commands of Christ, you are abiding or remaining in the Son. If you remain in the Son, the Son remains in you.
Therefore, you must keep the commands of Christ so that you can be called "born of God." The act of keeping the commands of Christ is work, not faith alone. That's free will, not predestination.
If you are "born of God," meaning keeping the commands of Christ, you do not continually sin. You can still commit sin, but you will not be habitually sinning.
That's logical, not magical. You're following His commandments, that's why you're not habitually sinning.
Your act of following Christ's commandments is an act of free choice. It is not a predestined condition that makes it impossible for you to sin. It is your free choice of following His commandments that results in your free choice of refusing to habitually sin.
Notice that verses 6 and 9 are perfectly consistent with each other.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM
Kailangan mo pa ba ng pagsasaligan? Are you saying people didn't/can't know what is good or bad without the Bible?
People only care what is good for them that is all.
Do they care about the message of God, His commandments? if they do, bakit maraming sinungaling? o wala ka bang naisip na mali sa kapwa mo?
Wala pang Bible sa panahon ni Noah pero ano ginagawa ng tao noon, bakit nalipol sila ng baha?
Kinaawaan lang naman si Noah sa totoo lang kaya siya naligtas sa baha.
Kung ginagawa ng tao ang mainam sa harap ng Dios, kailangan pa bang manaog si Cristo? Kailangan pa ba yang predestination na yan?
Pare-pareho lang tayong pupunta sa dagat dagatang apoy wala ni isa mang maliligtas.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:07 PM
People only care what is good for them that is all.
Do they care about the message of God, His commandments? if they do, bakit maraming sinungaling? o wala ka bang naisip na mali sa kapwa mo?
Wala namang nag-aargue na malinis ang lahat ng tao, that is beside the point. Don't tell me, malinis ka, you being in that list?
Quote
Wala pang Bible sa panahon ni Noah pero ano ginagawa ng tao noon, bakit nalipol sila ng baha?
Kinaawaan lang naman si Noah sa totoo lang kaya siya naligtas sa baha.
If we all descended from Noah, how come hindi sya kilala ng ibang kultura?
Quote
Kung ginagawa ng tao ang mainam sa harap ng Dios, kailangan pa bang manaog si Cristo? Kailangan pa ba yang predestination na yan?
Pare-pareho lang tayong pupunta sa dagat dagatang apoy wala ni isa mang maliligtas.
Kung may predestination, hindi kailangang manaog ni Jesus. Kaya sya nanaog e para bigyan tayo ng hope for salvation.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:08 PM
What does abiding in Christ mean? Abiding means remaining. Abiding in Christ means remaining in Christ's love. We remain in Christ's love if we keep Christ's commandments:
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:10)
We don't abide in Christ's love by faith alone. We abide by faith and keeping Christ's commandments.
Keeping Christ's commandments is work, not faith alone. Therefore, it cannot be faith alone. It is faith plus works.
First, you abide in Christ, then Christ abides in you.
Notice that the process has a proper order. Christ doesn't abide in you first. You abide in Christ first, then Christ abides in you:
Visiting John 15, we should undersatand this first as the proper order.
Bearing fruit need first that your are choosen by Christ.
John 15:16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 17These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
Unless you are choosen you will not bear fruit.
Quote
Therefore, the choice is up to you. It's your choice to remain or not to remain in Christ. That's free will, not predestination.
It is not your willl that your are choosen, it is Christ's.
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide,
You will only bear fruit, abide and keep His commandments if you are choosen and appointed.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 14, 2015 at 12:17 PM
Wala namang nag-aargue na malinis ang lahat ng tao, that is beside the point. Don't tell me, malinis ka, you being in that list?
If we all descended from Noah, how come hindi sya kilala ng ibang kultura?
Kung may predestination, hindi kailangang manaog ni Jesus. Kaya sya nanaog e para bigyan tayo ng hope for salvation.
Mat 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
Yan sir ang sagot.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 14, 2015 at 01:26 PM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 14, 2015 at 02:06 PM
Sagot yan kung naniniwala ka sa free will. Pero kung predestined ka ng maliligtas, hindi na kailangan si Jesus.
eto yung need kaya kailangan si Jesus:
because he will save his people from their sins."
kailangan mabayaran yung kasalanan sa pamamagitan ng dugo ni Jesus.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 14, 2015 at 02:17 PM
1. Merong listahan ng maliligtas.
2. Para maligtas yung mga nasa listahan, kailangan mamatay si muna Jesus.
Kung tama,
1. Doon sa mga nakibahagi sa pagpatay kay Jesus, nasa listahan ba?
2. Mayroon bang ibang kailangang gawin yung mga nasa listahan para maligtas?
Post by: pTrader on Sep 14, 2015 at 07:28 PM
Okay, tama ba intindi ko?
1. Merong listahan ng maliligtas.
2. Para maligtas yung mga nasa listahan, kailangan mamatay si muna Jesus.
Kung tama,
1. Doon sa mga nakibahagi sa pagpatay kay Jesus, nasa listahan ba?
2. Mayroon bang ibang kailangang gawin yung mga nasa listahan para maligtas?
1. Merong listahan ng maliligtas.
Book of Life
2. Para maligtas yung mga nasa listahan, kailangan mamatay si muna Jesus.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
and also
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
1. Doon sa mga nakibahagi sa pagpatay kay Jesus, nasa listahan ba?
Depends on God's grace and mercy.
2. Mayroon bang ibang kailangang gawin yung mga nasa listahan para maligtas?
Quote
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives lifed because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because ofe his Spirit who lives in you.
Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.And by him we cry, “Abba,g Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
After you are saved, the obligation is to live according to the Spirit.
And how can we follow ?
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 14, 2015 at 08:59 PM
1. Merong listahan ng maliligtas.
Book of Life
2. Para maligtas yung mga nasa listahan, kailangan mamatay si muna Jesus.
Psalm 69:27-29
New International Version (NIV)
27 Charge them with crime upon crime;
do not let them share in your salvation.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
and not be listed with the righteous.
Pwede din bang maaslis ang pangalan sa book of life?
2. Mayroon bang ibang kailangang gawin yung mga nasa listahan para maligtas?
After you are saved, the obligation is to live according to the Spirit.
And how can we follow ?
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God
Bakit may obligation pa kung saved na? And sir what will happen if the saved person does not live according to the Spirit?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Salvation is by grace alone. Not grace + works.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. Romans 11:6
Following God's commandment is not a requirement for salvation. It is byproduct of being a son of God or being saved. Kung sa branches and vines - it is the fruits. It said "abide" not "continue abiding". No one can follow God's commandment if they are not son of God. No one can completely follow God's commandment if they are still in their human form. Our physical body is corrupted and is weak. thus following God's commandment is not for salvation, but to overcome our flesh.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10
In terms of salvation, God never look on how righteous we are or how we follow His commandments. God looked through our hearts if we have true faith - if we are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. The Sacrifice of Jesus is enough and complete for us to be saved. There is no need to work for our own salvation, Jesus paid it all. Washed all our sins - past, present and future sins. Sacrifice for sins ay natapos na at isang beses lang.
Being son of God ay hindi nawawala dahil lang sa kung ano ang nagawa natin dito sa lupa, that is the assurance God gave to us. as we are bond by blood to our physical father here on earth, we are bond by blood of Jesus to our Heavenly Father.
Kahit na magkasala ako against my physical father, im still his son, dugo pa rin niya ako. Lagi kong ginagawa sa tatay ko kapag nagkamali ako o hindi ko nasunod utos niya, titimplahan ko lang ng kape and then habang ibibigay ko ang kape sabi ko "Sorry Papa". Even I forget to make coffee and say sorry to my father, I am still his son. Kung ganito ang bond na nagagawa human blood, how much more the bond na ibinigay ng blood of Jesus Christ.
The same with my God the Father, even I sin here on earth, I am still son of God, all i need to do is recognize that i am wrong and ask for forgiveness.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 02:19 AM
Kung may predestination, hindi kailangang manaog ni Jesus. Kaya sya nanaog e para bigyan tayo ng hope for salvation.
God requires a blood sacrifice. The only way for us to be cleansed from sin is blood sacrifice. Even if you are elected if there is no blood sacrifice you will not be saved. That is why Jesus still need to die in the cross because He is the perfect lamb sacrifice for our sins.
This is how it works. We really dont know who is predestined. That is why we need to spread/share the Word of God and whosever believeth on Jesus will be saved.
Post by: oweidah on Sep 15, 2015 at 04:38 AM
ever heard of DAMIAN SOTTO radio personality. heard him ...puro mura hahaha
google nyo
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 07:00 AM
Depends on God's grace and mercy.
Depends? Are they in the list already or would be added?
Quote
2. Mayroon bang ibang kailangang gawin yung mga nasa listahan para maligtas?
After you are saved, the obligation is to live according to the Spirit.
Do have a choice to oblige or mag-o-oblige ka automatically kasi saved ka na?
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 07:01 AM
This is how it works. We really dont know who is predestined. That is why we need to spread/share the Word of God and whosever believeth on Jesus will be saved.
What? Meron bang maliligtas outside of the predestined list?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 07:25 AM
What? Meron bang maliligtas outside of the predestined list?
save = elected/predestined
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 07:37 AM
save = elected/predestined
So what's the point of believing in Christ when you are already saved?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 07:44 AM
So what's the point of believing in Christ when you are already saved?
okay. kulang ata ng arrow ang nailagay ko, sorry...
save => elected/predestined
not like this
elected/predistined => save
walang sinabi sa Bible na "whoseover predestined will be saved"
ang sabi sa Bible "whoseover believeth will be saved"
you are predestined/elected if and only if you are save.
you are predestined/elected if and only if you believe in Jesus.
for example:
i dont know if Bumblebee is predestined but if Bumblebee believe in Jesus Christ and have true faith then I can say that Bumblebee is among the predestined.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 07:55 AM
If tama, kelan nasulat yung list? Before or after magkasala si Adam? Anong silbi nung mga wala sa list? Nabuhay lang sila para mapunta sa impyerno? Parang livestock or poultry, nurtured only to be butchered?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 08:34 AM
Okay, so yung "true faith" is an indication of predestination. Kung predestined ka, lalabas at lalabas yung true faith mo. Tama?
If tama, kelan nasulat yung list? Before or after magkasala si Adam? Anong silbi nung mga wala sa list? Nabuhay lang sila para mapunta sa impyerno? Parang livestock or poultry, nurtured only to be butchered?
Quote
Okay, so yung "true faith" is an indication of predestination. Kung predestined ka, lalabas at lalabas yung true faith mo. Tama?
Not an indication. It is necessary. If you dont have true faith, then you are not predestined/elected.
Quote
If tama, kelan nasulat yung list? Before or after magkasala si Adam? Anong silbi nung mga wala sa list? Nabuhay lang sila para mapunta sa impyerno? Parang livestock or poultry, nurtured only to be butchered?
before the foundation of the world.
God is God. if i am going to hell because of my sin so be it, but because of God's grace He forgives all my sins, washed all my sins by the blood of Jesus Christ, and saved me from hell. TO GOD BE THE GLORY!
All these things na ginawa niya at gagawin pa lang, mga nangyari na o mangyayari pa lang... all for His own glory. we can't understand the mind of God, all we can see and expeirnece is His judgement, mercy, forgiveness, grace, and His plan of salvation.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Roman 11:33-36
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 08:38 AM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM
Psalm 69:27-29
New International Version (NIV)
27 Charge them with crime upon crime;
do not let them share in your salvation.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
and not be listed with the righteous.
Pwede din bang maaslis ang pangalan sa book of life?
Bakit may obligation pa kung saved na? And sir what will happen if the saved person does not live according to the Spirit?
27 Charge them with crime upon crime;
do not let them share in your salvation.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
and not be listed with the righteous.
Pwede din bang maaslis ang pangalan sa book of life?
One of the possible answer here is in book of Romans 11 in understanding Psalms 69:22-29 regarding the unbelieving Jews.
And gain ponder these words not be listed with the righteous.
Quote
Bakit may obligation pa kung saved na?
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.
Ang buhay mo ay inde na kagaya ng dati na nasasakop pa ng kahatulan.
Gaya ng nasusulat , Kaya't kung ang sinoman ay na kay Cristo, siya'y bagong nilalang: ang mga dating bagay ay nagsilipas na; narito, sila'y pawang naging mga bago.
Iba na yung buhay mong lalakaran, nasa Espiritu kana at wala na sa laman.
Quote
And sir what will happen if the saved person does not live according to the Spirit?
14Sapagka't ang lahat ng mga pinapatnubayan ng Espiritu ng Dios, ay sila ang mga anak ng Dios.
Yung mga ligtas at anak ng Dios pinapatnubayan ng Banal na Espiritu.
No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
If they are really "saved person" the will live according to the Spirit for God’s seed abides in them.
Post by: barrister on Sep 15, 2015 at 01:11 PM
before the foundation of the world.
According to your belief, you were predestined as an individual to eternal salvation before the foundation of the world.
But sometimes you adjust your explanation to suit the discussion.
okay. kulang ata ng arrow ang nailagay ko, sorry...
save => elected/predestined
not like this
elected/predistined => save
Now you say salvation comes before being predestined.
If so, then we have no disagreement.
God predestined that those who believe will be saved. What was predestined was God's plan of salvation for all mankind. The individual must believe by his own free will. If he does so, then he becomes part of the predestined plan for those who believe by their own free will. What was established before the foundation of the world was merely the plan of salvation, not individual predestination to eternal life.
But that is not your basic belief. You believe predestination does not merely refer to the plan for mankind, it refers to predestined individual eternal salvation. You believe your name has been written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world, and that your name can never be erased from the Book. Therefore, your individual predestination to eternal life came before you were born, before you received the Holy Spirit.
To turn around and say that you are saved during your lifetime before you are considered predestined is to force the issue. You are attempting to make the nonsensical seem logical.
walang sinabi sa Bible na "whoseover predestined will be saved"
ang sabi sa Bible "whoseover believeth will be saved"
you are predestined/elected if and only if you are save.
you are predestined/elected if and only if you believe in Jesus.
for example:
i dont know if Bumblebee is predestined but if Bumblebee believe in Jesus Christ and have true faith then I can say that Bumblebee is among the predestined.
Again, that's my belief, not yours. The act of believing is free will; but predestination involves no free will. Believe in Christ and you will be part of the predestined plan for all mankind --- that those who believe will be saved.
In your case, you do not believe that the term "predestination" merely refers to the plan for all mankind; you believe predestination refers to individual eternal salvation.
Here, you're again saying individual predestination does not come first, it's believing in Christ that comes first.
How can you say predestination does not come first, when you believe you were already predestined even before the foundation of the world; and your name has already been irrevocably written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world?
You're adjusting your explanation to make it sound more logical.
You just don't realize that the adjustment causes you to contradict your own belief.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 01:17 PM
I never seek God, God found me. God made all necesary circumstances/events para mapakinggan ko ang Word of God the Gospel. There is no such accident salvation, God planned them all.
Post by: barrister on Sep 15, 2015 at 01:23 PM
Your doctrine is Irresistible Grace. The elect, chosen before the foundation of the world, are called to salvation. And once they are called, it will be impossible for them to resist.
That's not free will.
To make it sound like free will, you say the elect freely and willingly respond to the call of God, even if the call will be impossible for them to resist. Merely mentioning "free will" does not make it free will if you still call it "Irresistible Grace."
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 01:38 PM
When God lead man to salvation, and accepted Jesus, you will say it is not free will.
Free will is when no one is forcing you to choose. When I accepted Jesus Christ no one force me. When i commit sin, no one force me. I want to be saved. How it become no free will when i want to accept Jesus.
Post by: barrister on Sep 15, 2015 at 02:12 PM
When God lead man to salvation, and accepted Jesus, you will say it is not free will.
No, I will say it is free will. Man has the freedom to reject it.
Irresistible Grace is an unbiblical Calvinist doctrine.
Free will is when no one is forcing you to choose. When I accepted Jesus Christ no one force me. When i commit sin, no one force me. I want to be saved. How it become no free will when i want to accept Jesus.
You believe you are free to reject Jesus?
Then you believe Irresistible Grace is a false doctrine?
Post by: pTrader on Sep 15, 2015 at 02:14 PM
When satan lead Eve/adam to sin, and eve/adam sinned, is it free will or not? Your answer is it is free will.
When God lead man to salvation, and accepted Jesus, you will say it is not free will.
Free will is when no one is forcing you to choose. When I accepted Jesus Christ no one force me. When i commit sin, no one force me. I want to be saved. How it become no free will when i want to accept Jesus.
He has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.
The Lord has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble.
Will be the act of free will that I accepted Christ, the reason of my salvation or it is God's purpose and grace?
Someone will say, I confess Jesus is Lord that is my choice and free will therefore I am saved.
9because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
By then who enable you to confess?
Have you confess it by yourself?
no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
(eto muna)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 02:37 PM
Ifs irristible grace means you have been force to accept Jesus even if you dont want to then it is wrong.
Ifs irriatibe grace means God leading or guiding us unto salvatiom, then im ok with it.
No one force me to accept Jesus when God lead me to accepr Jesus. No one force me to accept the salvation when God lead me unto salvation. It is the work of God and the Holy Spirit and the glory belongs to them.
Barrister doesnt believe in predestination but believes in free will.
Ptrader doesnt believe in free will but brlieves in prrdestination
I believe both in predrstination and free will.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 15, 2015 at 02:50 PM
Quote
Ptrader doesnt believe in free will but brlieves in prrdestination
Si Adan at Eva may free will bago nagkasala, malaya sialng mag decide kung ano ang gagawen nila even magkasala.
After na magkasala si Adan at Eva, free will ba ang matatawag mo if you are following the way of disobedience?
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesha and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
Ngayong naligtas ka free will pa ba ang nasusunod o ang Spirit?
The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 04:01 PM
Ngayong naligtas ka free will pa ba ang nasusunod o ang Spirit?
The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.
Yes, the mind is now of the spirit. But the flesh still of this world. There now exist a battle within us, between the flesh and the Spirit.
The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
It still our choice whether to live in the will of God or stay in the flesh even though weve beem freed from its bondage. And if we stay in the flesh our life on earth will be short kesa sa maging stumbling block to fellow christian and to unbeliever God will take us away. And if you let the Holy Spirit take control of your life then our life on earth will be fruitful or full of righteousness and your life will be a witness of the saving grace of Jesus to those who still not believe.
Post by: barrister on Sep 15, 2015 at 06:12 PM
Ifs irristible grace means you have been force to accept Jesus even if you dont want to then it is wrong.
Ifs irriatibe grace means God leading or guiding us unto salvatiom, then im ok with it.
You did not clarify if you believe Irresistible Grace is false doctrine. The definition of Irresistible Grace must be limited to the definition given by the Calvinists; it should not be altered to include personal opinion that is contrary to Calvinist doctrine.
Irresistible Grace can't mean you are free to reject salvation. Otherwise, why would it be called "Irresistible."
Irresistible Grace can't mean God is merely leading you to salvation while allowing you to retain free will. Otherwise, the word "Irresistible" would not make sense again.
Irresistible Grace means the inability to resist God's grace. The ones chosen by God cannot resist because God overcomes their resistance to answering the call of the gospel, so that they are brought to faith in Christ.
You say it's wrong if you are forced. Since the elect don't have the ability to resist, then they are not forced. You're forced only after you resist. If you're not resisting, then you don't have to be forced.
If there is no force as a consequence of irresistibility, then you agree that Irresistible Grace is correct doctrine.
No one force me to accept Jesus when God lead me to accepr Jesus. No one force me to accept the salvation when God lead me unto salvation. It is the work of God and the Holy Spirit and the glory belongs to them.
Yes, that's Irresistible Grace of the Calvinists. The "I" of their TULIP acronym.
It's impossible for you to resist. That's why you don't have free will. That's Irresistible Grace, a doctrine that is unbiblical.
You have no ability to resist. You can't resist, that's why you weren't forced. if you're not resisting, then you don't have to be forced.
You can't resist because your name has been irrevocably written in the Book of Life since before the foundation of the world. You are predestined to eternal life, and it will be impossible for you to change that. Others are predestined to hell, and it will also be impossible for them to change that.
Therefore, you have no free will. Merely saying you have free will does not make it so, when you still believe you accepted salvation because it was impossible for you to reject it.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 15, 2015 at 06:53 PM
You did not clarify if you believe Irresistible Grace is false doctrine. The definition of Irresistible Grace must be limited to the definition given by the Calvinists; it should not be altered to include personal opinion that is contrary to Calvinist doctrine.
Irresistible Grace can't mean you are free to reject salvation. Otherwise, why would it be called "Irresistible."
Irresistible Grace can't mean God is merely leading you to salvation while allowing you to retain free will. Otherwise, the word "Irresistible" would not make sense again.
Irresistible Grace means the inability to resist God's grace. The ones chosen by God cannot resist because God overcomes their resistance to answering the call of the gospel, so that they are brought to faith in Christ.
You say it's wrong if you are forced. Since the elect don't have the ability to resist, then they are not forced. You're forced only after you resist. If you're not resisting, then you don't have to be forced.
If there is no force, then you agree that Irresistible Grace is correct doctrine.
Yes, that's Irresistible Grace of the Calvinists. The "I" of their TULIP acronym.
It's impossible for you to resist. That's why you don't have free will. That's Irresistible Grace, a doctrine that is unbiblical.
You have no ability to resist. You can't resist, that's why you weren't forced. if you can't resist, then you don't have to be forced.
You can't resist because your name has been irrevocably written in the Book of Life since before the foundation of the world. You are predestined to eternal life, and it will be impossible for you to change that. Others are predestined to hell, and it will also be impossible for them to change that.
Therefore, you have no free will. Merely saying you have free will does not make it so, when you still believe you accepted salvation because it was impossible for you to reject it.
I think most of the people resist death than life.
If God given you eternal life would you still choose death and damnation?
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.
And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
Quote
Others are predestined to hellWala pong predestine to hell.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 09:13 PM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 09:24 PM
Will you choose to jump in a lake of fire?
Will you reject a medicine na kung saan alam mong ito lang ang makakapagpagaling sa iyo? If you call it no free will so be it, but for me since i still choose to take the medicine, then i exercised my free will. I still have a choice whether to accept it or not.
As i said before, ever since namulat ako sa pagkakasala i always choose to reject God. But in God's perfect time, someone shared to me the bad and the Good News (the same person na laging kumakausap sa akin and several times i rejected the word of God), and this time i choose the Good News. Now tell me if its not free will.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 09:33 PM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 09:34 PM
Free will isn't about making the right choices. It's about being able to choose. Predestination and free will are mutually exclusive. You can't have both.
If we confined predestination and free within our human understanding then you are right.
But all things is possible to God. How did God make predestinatiom and free will coexist, a mystery perhaps, and that is one of many things i want to thank and glorify God.
Post by: barrister on Sep 15, 2015 at 09:47 PM
Wala pong predestine to hell.
Meron sa Calvinism. If some are predestined to heaven, where are the others predestined to go?
Hell, of course. John Calvin said so:
We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death. (John Calvin, Institutes, bk 3, ch. 21, sec. 5)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 15, 2015 at 09:50 PM
Yeah, that's free will. Now how is that predestination?
It's God who lead me unto salvation. And in His perfect time, He send someone to approach and to share the Word of God to me. Do you think it is an accident? No, I dont think so. Before the foundation of the world, God planned it all that someday in His perfect time He will bring the Gospel to me. There is no such accident salvation.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 15, 2015 at 09:56 PM
God did not find you. He knows where you are, what you do. It is you who found him.
Post by: barrister on Sep 15, 2015 at 10:38 PM
How did God make predestinatiom and free will coexist, a mystery perhaps, and that is one of many things i want to thank and glorify God.
For man-made doctrines, the word "mystery" is actually code for "I can't explain it." That's not biblical.
In the bible, the word "mystery" does not refer to something that cannot be understood by anyone; it actually refers to something that is now revealed.
For example:
25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. (Col. 1:25-26)
the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God (Rom. 16:25-26)
2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 3:4-6)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:08 AM
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Roman 11:33-36
For man-made doctrines, the word "mystery" is actually code for "I can't explain it." That's not biblical.
In the bible, the word "mystery" does not refer to something that cannot be understood by anyone; it actually refers to something that is now revealed.
Actually, it refers to God's perfect plan of salvation.
Quote
25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness— 26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people. (Col. 1:25-26)
the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God (Rom. 16:25-26)
2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 3:4-6)
The msytery is God's perfect plan of salvation that have been revealed to us through His word - the Bible.
But the mind of God which is what i am talking about "mystery" we cannot understand them, God never reveal them completely. That is why I called the predestination and free will coexist a mystery since predestination can be found in the Bible and free will can be found also in the Bible.
PS:
6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
Eph. 3:4-6
Whatever promise God made to Israel in Christ Jesus we - Gentiles, are included. When Jesus said "Your sins will I remember no more.." I believe it applies to all who believeth on Him.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:19 AM
If everything was possible for him, why did he have to send his only begotten son? Can't a mere flick of a finger not suffice? Why is the devil still here? Why are there calamities, hunger, war and death? How can glorify someone who knew those things will happen but did nothing?
God did not find you. He knows where you are, what you do. It is you who found him.
God is rightful Judge. He requires a perfect lamb sacrifice for the atonement of our sin. If He just snap His finger and then save all people from the punishment of their sins then He just contradict Himself. The only way for us to be saved is for Jesus Christ to be Lamb sacrifice and through the shedding of His sinless blood we might have redemption from sin.
Instead of questioning why God allows bad things happen to people... why not ask “Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people?” Despite of us being wicked and sinful, Jesus Christ died for us. <qoute (http://www.gotquestions.org/bad-things-good-people.html)>
Quote
God did not find you. He knows where you are, what you do. It is you who found him.
Yes. God knows where I am and knows what I am doing and knows my heart. That is why it is He who found me. And in terms of salvation, it is God who reaches for me, it is God who seek for me, it is God who found me. Honestly, as far as i remember, I never seek God before. How did I find God if on the first place I never seek Him?
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.Roman 3:10-12
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 16, 2015 at 06:41 AM
God is rightful Judge. He requires a perfect lamb sacrifice for the atonement of our sin. If He just snap His finger and then save all people from the punishment of their sins then He just contradict Himself. The only way for us to be saved is for Jesus Christ to be Lamb sacrifice and through the shedding of His sinless blood we might have redemption from sin.
If there's anyone who's contradicting himself, it's you. Predestination and free will are like fire and ice. One is hot, the other cold. Fire can't be cold as ice can't be hot.
Quote
Instead of questioning why God allows bad things happen to people... why not ask “Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people?” Despite of us being wicked and sinful, Jesus Christ died for us. <qoute (http://www.gotquestions.org/bad-things-good-people.html)>
Based on your belief, Jesus only died for the predestined. Why does God allow good things happen to bad people? Good question. I hope your answer isn't because they are actually not bad, they're predestined all the while.
Quote
Yes. God knows where I am and knows what I am doing and knows my heart. That is why it is He who found me. And in terms of salvation, it is God who reaches for me, it is God who seek for me, it is God who found me. Honestly, as far as i remember, I never seek God before. How did I find God if on the first place I never seek Him?
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.Roman 3:10-12
No, there is no need to find you because he knows where/what/how you are. Ikaw ba hahanapin mo pa yung isang bagay kung alam mo na kung nasaan?
How did you find God if on the first place you never looked for Him? People find/discover things all the time, even when they're not looking for them. Is it always by accident? No, it can be that they're already doing somethings that may have influenced their findings.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 16, 2015 at 06:55 AM
How did you find God if on the first place you never looked for Him? People find/discover things all the time, even when they're not looking for them. Is it always by accident? No, it can be that they're already doing somethings that may have influenced their findings.
Salvation is different, it is not just be compared to "things". People will never get salvation apart from God.
"God found me" means God provided and completed the plan of salvation for me. When I say God found me, it is simply mean that I recognize that the salvation I have came only from God not of my own works but God alone.
In terms of salvation, we are lost. As i told you before, I never seek God, I never found God. and by my personal experience, I can say that it is God who "found" me.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 16, 2015 at 07:06 AM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 16, 2015 at 07:18 AM
If that's the case, don't say God found you. Just say, God have salvation plans for you and the predestined lot. Simple enough hindi ba? And when you preach, instead of just saying "believe in Jesus", lagyan mo ng disclaimer, "believe in Jesus, malay mo, predestined ka".
I was lost but then God found me. I can't change what I have experience.
When someone share to me the Word of God no one tell me that I am predestined, he just show me the Good News. The same I will do when sharing the Word of God, what they need (lost souls) is Jesus Christ - salvation. They dont need a doctrine.
as i said before, when it comes to sharing the Word of God, we dont need to mention "predestination". For me it is meat, and it is hard for a new born babe to digest the meat.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 16, 2015 at 07:49 AM
I was lost but then God found me. I can't change what I have experience.
Don't twist your experience to suit your belief.
Quote
as i said before, when it comes to sharing the Word of God, we dont need to mention "predestination". For me it is meat, and it is hard for a new born babe to digest the meat.
The predestined list started with creation right? Bakit mo ipagpapaliban? Ano yan, catch?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 16, 2015 at 08:01 AM
Don't twist your experience to suit your belief.
because i was lost spiritually. if i am lost spiritually then only God can find me. cmon bumblebee, it is just an idea on how God works in our life. :) if you have better knowledge of what I experience then so be it. :) kung para sa iyo ang sinasabi kong testimony regarding on how God found me is not true nasa sa iyo yan. :)
Quote
The predestined list started with creation right? Bakit mo ipagpapaliban? Ano yan, catch?
again, meat is hard to digest. never introduce the doctrine of predestination to someone who dont even know or experience the salvation. they will just keep on asking questions. instead na mapalapit mo sila sa Panginoon, lalo lang silang mapapalayo.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 16, 2015 at 08:22 AM
because i was lost spiritually. if i am lost spiritually then only God can find me. cmon bumblebee, it is just an idea on how God works in our life. :)
Sorry, but I'm not buying that.
Quote
again, meat is hard to digest. never introduce the doctrine of predestination to someone who dont even know or experience the salvation. they will just keep on asking questions.
Parang marketing pitch pala yung faith mo. Me disclaimer kang predestination, pero ayaw mong idisclose.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 16, 2015 at 08:28 AM
Sorry, but I'm not buying that.
Because it is my personal experience. I am lost spiritually, I am an atheist, even cursing God in front of people. Wala ngang makakapagisip sa bahay namin na magbabago ang aking buhay :). When we are lost spiritually, it is God who seek for us, it is God who found us and lead us to light.
Parang marketing pitch pala yung faith mo. Me disclaimer kang predestination, pero ayaw mong idisclose.
Because what people need first is Jesus Christ - salvation. How they can understand the doctrine of predestination if they dont even experience the salvation.
Sa buhay ng isang Christian ay may process din yan, a new christian is considered a new baby in Christ... milk and soft food ang kailagan nila, huwag muna pakainin ng karne kasi hindi pa nila kaya.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 16, 2015 at 08:53 AM
Sa buhay ng isang Christian ay may process din yan, a new christian is considered a new baby in Christ... milk and soft food ang kailagan nila, huwag muna pakainin ng karne kasi hindi pa nila kaya.
Okay sana iyang process mo if they can influence their salvation. Kaso may list ka e. Pwede pa ba nila mabago yung list? Hindi na di ba? Hindi mo mapapakain ng karne ang herbivore kaya sa simula pa lang, sabihin mo na ang karne ay para sa carnivore lang.
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2015 at 09:00 AM
Actually, it refers to God's perfect plan of salvation.
The msytery is God's perfect plan of salvation that have been revealed to us through His word - the Bible.
But the mind of God which is what i am talking about "mystery" we cannot understand them, God never reveal them completely. That is why I called the predestination and free will coexist a mystery since predestination can be found in the Bible and free will can be found also in the Bible.
Tama ka naman sir. The mind of God really is impossible for man to comprehend.
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Is. 55:8 )
That is why God revealed to man some things through His word in the bible, because we would not be able to know them otherwise. But God did not reveal to us all things; He just revealed to us some things that He wanted us to know.
Included in what God revealed to us is His plan for salvation. That is not something impossible for man to comprehend because it was revealed by God through His word.
The issues of predestination and free will are matters that were revealed to man through God's word in the bible. Therefore, those issues are not impossible for man to comprehend.
In bible discussions, do not use the word "mystery" to mean something impossible for man to understand. In the bible, a mystery is something revealed.
The plan of salvation is revealed in the bible. If you fail to understand it, it does not mean it is impossible to understand, it only means you failed to grasp what was revealed by God.
The reason why you can't explain how individual predestination and free will can coexist is because individual predestination is a false doctrine, not because it is a secret knowledge kept hidden frrom man.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 16, 2015 at 09:02 AM
Okay sana iyang process mo if they can influence their salvation. Kaso may list ka e. Pwede pa ba nila mabago yung list? Hindi na di ba? Hindi mo mapapakain ng karne ang herbivore kaya sa simula pa lang, sabihin mo na ang karne ay para sa carnivore lang.
what we know is there is a list, but we dont know who are they... kaya nga di ba... we need to share the Word of God to every person because we dont know who is the elect. and when sharing the word of God dont mention predestination because they will not understand it.
when i am taking about milk, soft food or meat... i am talking about doctrine. there are doctrine suitable for new christian, doctrine for baby christian, doctrine para sa mga matured christian.
Post by: bumblebee on Sep 16, 2015 at 09:21 AM
what we know is there is a list, but we dont know who are they... kaya nga di ba... we need to share the Word of God to every person because we dont know who is the elect. and when sharing the word of God dont mention predestination because they will not understand it.
Simple lang naman predestination. I don't know why you are complicating it.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 16, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Meron sa Calvinism. If some are predestined to heaven, where are the others predestined to go?
Hell, of course. John Calvin said so:
We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death. (John Calvin, Institutes, bk 3, ch. 21, sec. 5)
If this written by John Calvin, it is John Calvin's not of the Bible.
just search the bible eto yung may predestined word:
predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also
justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ,
in accordance with his pleasure and will
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him
who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will
but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which
God predestined before the ages to our glory
Post by: pTrader on Sep 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM
If there's anyone who's contradicting himself, it's you. Predestination and free will are like fire and ice. One is hot, the other cold. Fire can't be cold as ice can't be hot.
Na gets ko na yung ibig mong sabihin.
Quote
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also
justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Predestination, Calling, Justification, Glorification are an act and will of God alone. Walang kinalaman ang free will ng tao diyan. At wala kang magagawa diyan ang action is from God alone.
Isinulat yung pangalan mo sa Aklat ng Buhay, wala ka rin magagwa diyan even you exercise free will. Yung nagsulat ng pangalan mo ang nag exercise ng free will niya para masulat ang pangalan mo.
Kung free will pa rin ang pag-uusapan, Yung tagapagligtas ay may free will din kung sino ang kanyang ililigtas.
Free will din ng Hukom kung sino ang ikukulong at patatawarin. Ang hukom ang mag dedesisyon inde tayo na may free-will din.
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:14 PM
If this written by John Calvin, it is John Calvin's not of the Bible.
Tama.
Sabi ni Calvin, some are predestined to hell. That's wrong. Sabi rin ni Calvin, some are predestined to heaven. That's also wrong.
just search the bible eto yung may predestined word:
Tama.
Meron talagang predestined word sa bible. Hindi problema yon. Ang problema, yung intindi sa meaning ng predestined.
predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son
Tama.
The plan of salvation was predestined. It was predestined that those who believe in Christ will be saved.
Use your free will and believe in Christ, and you will be considered part of those who will be saved in accordance with the predestined plan.
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also
justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Tama.
God predestined that some will believe Christ and some will not.
Use your free will, believe in Christ, and you will be part of the group who believe in Christ and will be saved. They who respond to the call of the gospel will be justified and glorified.
The call, justification, and glorification are part of the plan of salvation. What was predestined was the plan, not the salvation of the specific individual.
God's plan was predestined; man's response is free will.
he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ,
in accordance with his pleasure and will
Tama.
The plan of salvation was predestined. Believe in Christ using your free will and you will be part of the group that will be saved.
That is in accordance with God's pleasure and will --- that those who believe will be saved. Man will use his free will to respond to it; he will also use his free will to reject it.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him
who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will
Tama.
What was predestined was the plan, not individual salvation.
Believe in Christ and you will be chosen. Once you are chosen, you will part of the group that will be saved.
That's free will.
but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which
God predestined before the ages to our glory
Tama.
What was predestined was the plan of salvation. The plan is a mystery because it was once hidden, but is now revealed. And the plan is that all who believe will be saved, whether Jew or Gentile.
Salvation is possible for all; it is not limited to those who were individually predestined. Believe in Christ and you will be saved.
That's free will, not individual predestination.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:35 PM
Tama.
Sabi ni Calvin, some are predestined to hell. That's wrong. Sabi rin ni Calvin, some are predestined to heaven. That's also wrong.
Tama.
Meron talagang predestined word sa bible. Hindi problema yon. Ang problema, yung intindi sa meaning ng predestined.
Tama.
The plan of salvation was predestined. It was predestined that those who believe in Christ will be saved.
Use your free will and believe in Christ, and you will be considered part of those who will be saved in accordance with the predestined plan.
Tama.
God predestined that some will believe Christ and some will not.
Use your free will, believe in Christ, and you will be part of the group who believe in Christ and will be saved. They who respond to the call of the gospel will be justified and glorified.
The call, justification, and glorification are part of the plan of salvation. What was predestined was the plan, not the salvation of the specific individual.
God's plan was predestined; man's response is free will.
Tama.
The plan of salvation was predestined. Believe in Christ using your free will and you will be part of the group that will be saved.
That is in accordance with God's pleasure and will --- that those who believe will be saved. Man will use his free will to respond to it; he will also use his free will to reject it.
Tama.
What was predestined was the plan, not individual salvation.
Believe in Christ and you will be chosen. Once you are chosen, you will part of the group that will be saved.
That's free will.
Tama.
What was predestined was the plan of salvation. The plan is a mystery because it was once hidden, but is now revealed. And the plan is that all who believe will be saved, whether Jew or Gentile.
Salvation is possible for all; it is not limited to those who were individually predestined. Believe in Christ and you will be saved.
That's free will, not individual predestination.
Ibig sabihin if you exerciise your free will doon ka maka-qualified? kung inde mo gagawaing manampalataya by your own free will inde ka maliligtas?
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2015 at 12:42 PM
kung inde mo gagawaing manampalataya by your own free will inde ka maliligtas?
Yes, ganon na nga sir.
Malinaw naman siguro yon sa sangkatutak na post ko.
Pati exceptions na-post ko na rin.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 16, 2015 at 01:00 PM
Yes, ganon na nga sir.
Malinaw naman siguro yon sa sangkatutak na post ko.
Pati exceptions na-post ko na rin.
Ibig sabihin you saved yourself? in other words, Co-Saviour ka ng sarili mo?
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2015 at 02:53 PM
Wag na nating pahabain sir. Hindi naman baguhan sa bible debates ang kausap mo. Derecho na agad tayo sa punto.
You mean you believe in "faith alone" without works, or the "Sola Fide" doctrine of Martin Luther.
You know I believe in faith + works.
Cite your support verses and I will explain my interpretations of your verses.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 16, 2015 at 05:51 PM
No.
Wag na nating pahabain sir. Hindi naman baguhan sa bible debates ang kausap mo. Derecho na agad tayo sa punto.
You mean you believe in "faith alone" without works, or the "Sola Fide" doctrine of Martin Luther.
You know I believe in faith + works.
Cite your support verses and I will explain my interpretations of your verses.
Eph 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
I do believe that by the grace of God I have been saved, through faith. And this faith does not come from me but from God.
Romans 12:3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you
Acts 3:16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.
As Paul testified, that faith is in Christ Jesus.
1 tim 1:13Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Can that faith sufficient enough for salvation? Yes, because those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham. And that by that faith we are justified.
Gal 3:8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”d9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
What about James 2?
James 2:17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:20You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd ? 21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
The faith that cometh from God is always accompanied by action. Your action validates your faith or the evidence of your faith.
James 2
...his faith was made complete by what he did. ...
Romans 12
..in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you..
So the boundaries of such action is in accordance with the faith that God has given.
Actions or works (as other say it) are only the evidence of that faith.
It is always been "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" not by "faith + work" or by "faith alone" .
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 16, 2015 at 08:04 PM
Ibig sabihin if you exerciise your free will doon ka maka-qualified? kung inde mo gagawaing manampalataya by your own free will inde ka maliligtas?
Sir, try ko baliktarin ang question.
Kung hindi ka mananampalataya by your own free will, malilligatas ka pa din ba?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 16, 2015 at 08:19 PM
27 Charge them with crime upon crime;
do not let them share in your salvation.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
and not be listed with the righteous.
Pwede din bang maaslis ang pangalan sa book of life?
One of the possible answer here is in book of Romans 11 in understanding Psalms 69:22-29 regarding the unbelieving Jews.
And gain ponder these words not be listed with the righteous.
Sir ayon sa Romans 11:
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches.
So pwedeng maalis ang pangalan sa book of life.
Post by: barrister on Sep 16, 2015 at 09:12 PM
Eph 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
I do believe that by the grace of God I have been saved, through faith. And this faith does not come from me but from God.
By grace you have been saved. Grace is a gift, not something earned. The gift comes from God.
The verse is talking about the works of the law of Moses. That is why the chapter talks about the barrier of hostility between the circumcised and the circumcision in verses 11-18.
Verse 8 explains that it is not by works of the law alone that you are saved. If it were by works of the law alone, then you would boast that it was from your own power that you were saved.
If it is not by works alone, does it mean you are saved by grace alone? No. Does it mean you are saved by faith alone? No.
Does the verse say you are saved by grace alone? No. The entire bible does not say you are saved by "grace alone."
Does it say you are saved by faith alone? No. The entire bible does not say you are saved by "faith alone."
The bible mentions "faith alone" only once --- for the purpose of explaining that faith alone will not save you:
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
Romans 12:3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you
Acts 3:16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.
Romans 12:3 does not say we are saved by grace alone; it does not say were are saved by faith alone.
It's saying that you should not think too highly of your own role in the church. If your role is to serve, just serve in faith; do not teach scripture if you do not have the role of a teacher.
Acts 3:16 does not say we are saved by faith alone.
Acts 3:16 is about physical healing, not about eternal salvation. The lame beggar was asking for money, not salvation. It was not the faith of the lame beggar that healed him, it was the faith of Peter and John. The lame beggar did not yet have faith. All he was interested in at the time was alms, not spiritual salvation.
As Paul testified, that faith is in Christ Jesus.
1 tim 1:13Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
It does not say "grace alone;" it does not say "faith alone."
Paul did a lot of work as the apostle to the Gentiles.
Paul did not stop with faith alone.
==================================
Can that faith sufficient enough for salvation? Yes, because those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham. And that by that faith we are justified.
Gal 3:8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”d9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Galatians 3 explains that salvation used to be available only to the Jews, but is now extended to all. It used to be available only to the bloodline of Abraham. Now, those who have faith in Jesus Christ are considered children of Abraham spiritually, even if they are not literal descendants of Abraham.
Note that when Paul mentions "works" here, he means the "works of the Law of Moses:"
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Gal. 3:1-9)
If you rely on faith, you will be blessed. It means salvation will also be available to you, just as it was available to the Jews.
Abraham was credited with righteousness, even if the law did not yet exist during his time. It means faith is the one that is important, not the law of Moses. That is why the Gentiles received the Spirit by faith and not because of their works of law of Moses.
Therefore, it is a contrast between the works of the law of Moses and faith. It is faith that is required, not the works of the law of Moses. But it is not a negation of good works; it is merely a negation of the works of the law of Moses.
It does not say that all you need is "faith alone" without good works, and you are guaranteed salvation.
On the contrary, the bible says Abraham was considered righteous not by "faith alone," but by faith + works:
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. (James 2:21-24)
Here's what the bible does say about good works:
6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Rom. 2:6-7)
Does it say God will give eternal life according to our "faith alone"? That those who by persistence in having "faith alone" will be given eternal life?
===================================
Romans 12
..in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you..
So the boundaries of such action is in accordance with the faith that God has given.
You're out of context.
The verse is explaining that each has a different role to play in the church. The early Christians were warned --- Do not think of yourself more highly than you should. Some are given the role of a teacher, but not all can be teachers.
3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully. (Rom. 12:3-8)
Is it talking about salvation? No. Is it saying "faith alone" without good works? No.
On the contrary, it's talking about good works in the church, and that each has his own function in the totality of the good works of the "one body with many members."
What about James 2?
James 2:17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:20You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd ? 21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
The faith that cometh from God is always accompanied by action. Your action validates your faith or the evidence of your faith.
James 2
...his faith was made complete by what he did. ...
Instead of contradicting my position, you're actually supporting it.
Faith is dead if not accompanied by works. Abraham's faith and actions were working together. Faith is made complete by action. Therefore, it's faith + works.
It cannot be faith alone.
The devil believes in God. Is the devil saved?
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (James 2:19)
==================================
"Faith alone" vs. "faith + works" --- which is correct? James explains:
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? 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. (James 2:14-26)
Your action validates your faith or the evidence of your faith.
Thanks for agreeing with me. ;)
Post by: dpogs on Sep 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM
"For by grace are ye saved... not or works lest any man should boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 11:6
If we say that we need to do good work in order to maintain our salvation then it is not grace anymore. You are implying that what Jesus did in the cross is incomplete that we still need to maintain our salvation. Our salvation depends in our complete trust to Jesus saving grace.
"Faith without works is dead" hindi sinabi dito na without works your salvation is not complete. It only says your faith is dead thus better check if it is genuine or not, because a saving faith produces good works.
James is describing what is "genuine" faith. He is not describing the gospel as what Paul did in Romans. If you have genuine faith it will always produce or results to good works. If you're saying that you have faith but no good works is evident in your life then your faith is dead (not genuine).
When it comes to gospel/salvation : Faith alone (or Grace alone)
When it comes to Christian Living : Faith + Works
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2015 at 01:56 AM
Justification before eyes of God is by faith alone. Grace is grace and works is works. We cannot combined them when it comes to our salvation. Man cannot achieve or earn his salvation by his works. It is only by God's grace.
That's not biblical.
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24)
"For by grace are ye saved... not or works lest any man should boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9
Ephesians 2 is talking about works of the law of Moses.
The gift of God is that there is a plan of salvation. Believe in Christ and you will be saved. That is God's grace.
Without God's grace, you can believe all you want and you still won't be saved. With God's grace, you can now believe and be saved.
By that grace, we are saved. What do we do? Believe in Christ. What does it mean to believe in Christ? Follow his commands. That's work.
By grace we are saved. Not by works of the law of Moses. Because if it's by the works of the law, then we would boast that we were saved through our own power. That's what the verses mean.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Romans 11:6
Romans 11 refers to works of the law of Moses.
If we are saved on the basis of grace, then we are saved based on an unearned and undeserved gift.
It cannot be based on works of the law of Moses. Because if it's based on works of the law, then it is something earned, not unearned and undeserved.
The gift of God is that there is a plan of salvation. Believe in Christ and you will be saved. That is God's grace.
Without God's grace, you can believe all you want and you still won't be saved. With God's grace, you can now believe and be saved.
By that grace, we are saved. What do we do? Believe in Christ. What does it mean to believe in Christ? Follow his commands. That's work.
By grace we are saved. Not by works of the law of Moses. Because if it's by the works of the law, then that can't be considered grace anymore. That's what the verses mean.
How will we be judged? By our faith alone? No, we shall be judged according to what we have done.
6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Rom. 2:6-7)
If we say that we need to do good work in order to maintain our salvation then it is not grace anymore. You are implying that what Jesus did in the cross is incomplete that we still need to maintain our salvation. Our salvation depends in our complete trust to Jesus saving grace.
No, hindi ganon yon sir. You did not understand how Christ's sacrifice worked.
Without Jesus' death, there is no forgiveness of sins. With Jesus' death, there is now forgiveness of sins.
What do you have to do? Repent of your sins and believe in Christ. Your sins are forgiven. You are a new creation.
Which of your sins are forgiven? All of your past sins. Christ's sacrifice is complete, and completely erases your past sins. Your future sins are not included.
If your future sins are not included, then you must remain in Him by following His commands, otherwise you will be cast off.
Sa iyo pala sir, yung kamatayan ni Kristo, burado hindi lang past sins mo, burado rin pati yung future sins mo. Magbulakbol ka na lang sir, just trust Jesus to save you.
Paul himself was worried about his own salvation. He did not say "Once Saved Always Saved." He was aware that he himself might be cast away if he does not remain in Christ:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (1 Cor. 9:27)
Hindi katulad mo sir, wala kang kakaba-kaba sa salvation mo. Ang lumalabas, talo mo pa pala si Pablo na apostol.
"Faith without works is dead" hindi sinabi dito na without works your salvation is not complete. It only says your faith is dead thus better check if it is genuine or not, because a saving faith produces good works.
Hindi sinabi na without works your salvation is not complete, only dead?
Labo naman non sir. Ang sabi, hindi lang incomplete, patay pa. Pag incomplete lang, baka sakaling buhay na naghihingalo. Dito, hindi lang naghihingalo, patay.
Better check if it's genuine or not? Patay na nga e.
Tama, a saving faith produces good works. That's why if there are no good works, then faith is dead. E di faith + good works nga.
If you have genuine faith it will always produce or results to good works. If you're saying that you have faith but no good works is evident in your life then your faith is dead (not genuine).
You say genuine faith always has good works. E di faith + good works nga.
You say the one who claims he has faith but does not have good works, his faith is dead. E di faith + good works nga.
When it comes to gospel/salvation : Faith alone (or Grace alone)
When it comes to Christian Living : Faith + Works
This is not biblical. I don't know where you got this.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 17, 2015 at 03:00 AM
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24)
Ephesians 2 is talking about works of the law of Moses.
The gift of God is that there is a plan of salvation. Believe in Christ and you will be saved. That is God's grace.
Without God's grace, you can believe all you want and you still won't be saved. With God's grace, you can now believe and be saved.
By that grace, we are saved. What do we do? Believe in Christ. What does it mean to believe in Christ? Follow his commands. That's work.
By grace we are saved. Not by works of the law of Moses. Because if it's by the works of the law, then we would boast that we were saved through our own power. That's what the verses mean.
Eph 2:8-9 only says "works" not "works of the law of Moses"
If we are saved on the basis of grace, then we are saved based on an unearned and undeserved gift.
It cannot be based on works of the law of Moses. Because if it's based on works of the law, then it is something earned, not unearned and undeserved.
...
No, hindi ganon yon sir. You did not understand how Christ's sacrifice worked.
Without Jesus' death, there is no forgiveness of sins. With Jesus' death, there is now forgiveness of sins.
What do you have to do? Repent of your sins and believe in Christ. Your sins are forgiven. You are a new creation.
During this moment - repenting and beleiving - are you doing "work"?
Which of your sins are forgiven? All of your past sins. Christ's sacrifice is complete, and completely erases your past sins. Your future sins are not included.
If your future sins are not included, then you must remain in Him by following His commands, otherwise you will be cast off.
When Jesus covered us by His blood, God the father doesnt see us by our works, but by the blood of Jesus. Kaya nga Jesus sacrficie himself because God knows no one can follow His commands. all works need for salvation already completed by Jesus Christ.
If i am not doing any good here on earth i may be taken away but not cast off. cast off is for those who didnt believe in Jesus.
Sa iyo pala sir, yung kamatayan ni Kristo, burado hindi lang past sins mo, burado rin pati yung future sins mo. Magbulakbol ka na lang sir, just trust Jesus to save you.
This is not true if you have a genuine faith. A real christian will never do this. "Bulakbol, magkasala no limit kasi pupunta naman ng langit". Faith doesnt work that way. Ang nakakaisip lang nito ay ang mga washedup pig/wolves in sheepskin.
Paul himself was worried about his own salvation. He was aware that he himself might be cast away if he does not remain in Christ:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (1 Cor. 9:27)
Hindi katulad mo sir, wala kang kakaba-kaba sa salvation mo. Ang lumalabas, talo mo pa pala si Pablo na apostol.
Castaway but not condemend. I may be castaway with my fellowship to God but not our relationship. This is what we called "practice what we preach". If you are saying you're Christian then bring your body into subjection under the holy spirit.
I am just holding on what Jesus promise to me - eternal life. That is why I am confident through Jesus Christ's promises. I am not confident of myself, I am confident sa promise ng Diyos.
Hindi sinabi na without works your salvation is not complete, only dead?
Labo naman non sir. Ang sabi, hindi lang incomplete, patay pa. Pag incomplete lang, baka sakaling buhay na naghihingalo. Dito, hindi lang naghihingalo, patay.
Better check if it's genuine or not? Patay na nga e.
Faith without works is dead = Faith without works is not genuine
Tama, a saving faith produces good works. That's why if there are no good works, then faith is dead. E di faith + good works nga.
genunie faith that produces good works... byproduct of genuine faith... result of genuine faith... result of salvation... but not necessary (or not a requirement) for salvation.
You say genuine faith always has good works. E di faith + good works nga.
You say the one who claims he has faith but does not have good works, his faith is dead. E di faith + good works nga.
This is our difference:
Why I am doing good works or why I am obeying God's commandment? Because... It is the results of my relationship to God. It is the result of a genuine faith. It is the result of my salvation. It is the workmanship of Jesus made me unto good works.
Why you are doing good works or why you are obeying God's commandment? To maintain your relationship to God. To maintain your salvation. To obtain your salvation. To earned you salvation.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 17, 2015 at 10:52 AM
Eph 2:8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
I do believe that by the grace of God I have been saved, through faith. And this faith does not come from me but from God.
Romans 12:3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you
Acts 3:16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.
As Paul testified, that faith is in Christ Jesus.
1 tim 1:13Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Sinasabe ko sa taas na "by grace" at kung saan nagmula yung faith. walang Sola, Sola concept dyan.
Can that faith sufficient enough for salvation? Yes, because those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham. And that by that faith we are justified.
Gal 3:8Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”d9So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
What about James 2?
James 2:17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:20You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd ? 21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
The faith that cometh from God is always accompanied by action. Your action validates your faith or the evidence of your faith.
James 2
...his faith was made complete by what he did. ...
Romans 12
..in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you..
So the boundaries of such action is in accordance with the faith that God has given.
Actions or works (as other say it) are only the evidence of that faith.
since mahilig kayo sa formula then gawan natin ng formula
sabi ng iba:
Faith + Work = Salvation
Sabi ng James:
22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did
Complete Faith = Faith with actions or faith with evidence of action.
Complete Faith = Faith + Work
It is always been "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" not by "faith + work" or by "faith alone" .
Kaya nga sinabe ko sa taas and quoted Eph 2:8,9 kasi mahilig mag gawa ng formula eh wala namang "by grace through "Faith + Work" or by grace through "faith alone".
Simply lang naman yung words "by grace you have been saved, through faith".
Post by: pTrader on Sep 17, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Sir, try ko baliktarin ang question.
Kung hindi ka mananampalataya by your own free will, malilligatas ka pa din ba?
Kailangan yung pananampalataya sir.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 17, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Sir ayon sa Romans 11:
13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches.
So pwedeng maalis ang pangalan sa book of life.
28 May they be blotted out of the book of life
and not be listed with the righteous.
this seems to be a request to blot the name. Referring to verse 22 up to the verses you posted, pinapakita diyan kung gano kasama yung ginagawa nila that is why such request was made.
Talking about Israel, this is "17 If some of the branches have been broken off, " not utter rejection since there is still a covenant existing (see verse 26 to 27).
Quote
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26and in this waye all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27And this isf my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
And also case of election:
Quote
but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may nowh receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Quote
Rom 9:6It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”b8In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”c
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2015 at 01:22 PM
Believing is not work. Following God's commandment is product of believing/faith.
First, know the biblical meaning of "believe." To believe in Christ includes the act of following Christ's commands.
If all you have to do to be saved is to passively believe, then no active abiding is required.
Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31)
Does this mean that all that is required is a passive belief? No.
12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. (Rev. 22:12)
The reward of eternal life is based on what you have done. Why does Acts 16:31 just say "believe"? Because believing includes following Christ's commands. It is not limited to passive belief.
4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. (1 John 2:4)
That's why Christ asked:
46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46)
========================================
Eph 2:8-9 only says "works" not "works of the law of Moses"
You failed to see the context.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2:8-13)
What kind of works is the verse discussing? Works of the law of Moses like circumcision.
That's why it says, "therefore." It is distinguishing between Jew and Gentile. The circumcision and the uncircumcised. Not by works of the law, but through faith.
That's why it says "not by works" (Jews), then immediately follows by saying "to do good works" (Gentiles). It is distinguishing between works of the law and good works that are not of the law.
=====================================
When Jesus covered us by His blood, God the father doesnt see us by our works, but by the blood of Jesus. Kaya nga Jesus sacrficie himself because God knows no one can follow His commands. all works need for salvation already completed by Jesus Christ.
Works are still required. That's why we will be judged according to what we have done.
Jesus sacrificed himself because the sacrificial lamb must be sinless. Only He is sinless, so only He is qualified.
Jesus completed the requirement so that man can be born of the Spirit. Nothing man can do can ever fulfill that requirement. But once man is spiritually reborn, he must follow the commands of Christ and continue to follow His commands:
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3-6)
You will see clearly that it is not enough to have faith. You must do what Christ commands. That is work.
=====================================
If i am not doing any good here on earth i may be taken away but not cast off. cast off is for those who didnt believe in Jesus.
That's what I said. You believe you're better than Paul.
You are sure you won't be cast off because you are sure you believe in Christ.
Paul believes in Christ, yet he is concerned that he might be cast off:
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (1 Cor. 9:27, KJV)
No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor. 9:27, NIV)
You don't need works. Good works come automatically to you. Good works are only byproducts. The only thing necessary is faith.
In contrast, Paul must force himself to do good works. He disciplines his body like a slave, forcing it to do good works.
Talo mo pa sir si Pablo. Si Pablo hirap na hirap, ikaw walang ka effort-effort.
=====================================
This is not true if you have a genuine faith. A real christian will never do this. "Bulakbol, magkasala no limit kasi pupunta naman ng langit". Faith doesnt work that way. Ang nakakaisip lang nito ay ang mga washedup pig/wolves in sheepskin.
You believe all you need to abide is faith alone, and that all who abide will never sin:
Those who abide in Jesus never sin.
What do you have to worry about?
Do whatever you want. Anything you do will not be sin because you automatically do good. It will be impossible for you to sin.
Do you have to discipline yourself? No. You achieve good works automatically and without effort.
Mas magaling ka pa nga kay Pablo.
====================================
Faith without works is dead = Faith without works is not genuine
genunie faith that produces good works... byproduct of genuine faith... result of genuine faith... result of salvation... but not necessary (or not a requirement) for salvation.
"Faith Alone" is a doctrine invented by Luther. All you need for salvation is faith alone. Good works are not required.
Yet "faith alone" is found only once in the bible, and only for the purpose of saying the opposite of Luther's false doctrine:
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
Luther was so baffled with the contrary message of James 2 that he wanted to remove the Book of James from the Bible. He called the book of James an "epistle of straw," implying that it should be burned like straw since it does not belong in the bible.
These days, the "faith alone" adherents devise new workarounds to solve the contrary teaching of James 2.
They say good works are not a requirement, faith inevitably leads to good works, works are the demonstration of faith, works are the proof of faith, good works show that you have genuine faith rather than false faith or dead faith, etc., etc.
All of those arguments are illogical, nonsensical, and unbiblical. Yet there is one thing they cannot escape --- faith and good works cannot be separated from each other.
Why? Because the requirement is faith + works, not "faith alone."
Post by: pTrader on Sep 17, 2015 at 01:53 PM
This is talking about "righteous person only"
Post by: dpogs on Sep 17, 2015 at 05:44 PM
A son of man, or those who dont have genuine faith, their nature is to commit sins, because they were born by flesh. Their soul and body is of this world.
Every born again is a new creature, from sinful nature to godly nature. Paul recognize the lust of the flesh/body that still corrupted. He is not working to obtain salvation, he is not subjecting his body to discipline to obtain salvation, he is aubjecting his body because it still corrupted.
The thing is no one can follow God's commandment completely.
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2015 at 06:18 PM
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
This is talking about "righteous person only"
Tama.
It is talking about the righteous person. What does the righteous person have? He has both faith and good works. That is why he is considered righteous.
What happens to the righteous? They go to eternal life:
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Mt. 25:46)
Abraham is an example of a man considered by God to be righteous:
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. (James 2:21-24)
"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. " That's faith. Was it faith alone? No. "Abraham was considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac." That's work.
So, it's faith + works --- "You see that his faith and actions were working together."
Thus, James concludes:
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. (James 2:26)
Ang dali namang intindihin. Pinipilit n'yo lang patunugin yung "faith alone" n'yo kaya gumugulo.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 17, 2015 at 06:29 PM
Tama.
It is talking about the righteous person. What does the righteous person have? He has both faith and good works. That is why he is considered righteous.
What happens to the righteous? They go to eternal life:
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Mt. 25:46)
Abraham is an example of a man considered by God to be righteous:
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. (James 2:21-24)
"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. " That's faith. Was it faith alone? No. "Abraham was considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac." That's work.
So, it's faith + works --- "You see that his faith and actions were working together."
Thus, James concludes:
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. (James 2:26)
Ang dali namang intindihin. Pinipilit n'yo lang patunugin yung "faith alone" n'yo kaya gumugulo.
14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?
So what is this faith that James is proving?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 17, 2015 at 06:49 PM
If salvation is by grace, why there is a need to work for it? Then it is not grace anymore but by works.
What is your purpose of doing good works? Is it to earn your salvation?
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2015 at 07:11 PM
Paul is subjecting his body as a prracher to obtain a prize. It is a prize, something he earned for that is why it is a prize. Now salvation is by grace, something we dont earned. So what is paul's prize?
That's easy. The analogy of the race and the prize can be found in different places in the bible.
Tell me what you think it means before I explain it. Otherwise, you're giving me a fool's errand.
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2015 at 07:16 PM
14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?
So what is this faith that James is proving?
It is dead faith. It's dead because it's useless. It's useless because it has no use for the purpose of salvation.
Post by: JT on Sep 17, 2015 at 07:28 PM
For Faith only ... Romans 4:4-6 (Amplified Bible)
"4 Now to a laborer, his wages are not credited as a favor or a gift, but as an obligation [something owed to him]. 5 But to the one who does not work [that is, the one who does not try to earn his salvation by doing good], but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is [a]credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God). 6 And in this same way David speaks of the blessing on the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:"
And what about the "WORK" James is referring to? I believe it is referring to good works as a natural result of our genuine faith ... RIGHT BELIEVING WILL PRODUCE RIGHT LIVING.
And I believe that this is the kind of WORK every believer should do to secure salvation ... 2 Peter 1:1-11 (Amplified Bible)
"1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle (special messenger, personally chosen representative) of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received and possess [by God’s will] a precious faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace [that special sense of spiritual well-being] be multiplied to you in the [true, intimate] knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 3 For His divine power has bestowed on us [absolutely] everything necessary for [a dynamic spiritual] life and godliness, through true and personal knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. 4 For by these He has bestowed on us His precious and magnificent promises [of inexpressible value], so that by them you may escape from the immoral freedom that is in the world because of disreputable desire, and become sharers of the divine nature.
5 For this very reason, applying your diligence [to the divine promises, MAKE EVERY EFFORT] in [EXERCISING] your faith to, develop moral excellence, and in moral excellence, knowledge (insight, understanding), 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, steadfastness, and in your steadfastness, godliness, 7 and in your godliness, brotherly affection, and in your brotherly affection, [develop Christian] love [that is, learn to unselfishly seek the best for others and to do things for their benefit]. 8 For as these qualities are yours and are increasing [in you as you grow toward spiritual maturity], they will keep you from being useless and unproductive in regard to the true knowledge and greater understanding of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is blind—shortsighted [closing his spiritual eyes to the truth], having become oblivious to the fact that he was cleansed from his old sins.
10 Therefore, believers, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you [be sure that your behavior reflects and confirms your relationship with God]; for by [f]doing these things [actively developing these virtues], you will never stumble [in your spiritual growth and will live a life that leads others away from sin]; 11 for in this way ENTRY INTO THE ETERNAL KINGDOM of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly provided to you."
Makes sense???
Post by: pTrader on Sep 17, 2015 at 07:43 PM
It is dead faith. It's dead because it's useless. It's useless because it has no use for the purpose of salvation.
So what kind of faith did James clarified which was sufficient?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 17, 2015 at 07:59 PM
That's easy. The analogy of the race and the prize can be found in different places in the bible.
Tell me what you think it means before I explain it. Otherwise, you're giving me a fool's errand.
I believe you're referring to salvation as Paul's prize. For me that prize is not the salvation since salvarion is a gift given to us not a prize to earned.
There are many prizes mentioned in the Bible which is applicable only to those who have salvation or genuine faith eg mansion, crowns, .. But not defimtely salvation because they already have it.
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2015 at 09:05 PM
The prize is eternal life.
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor. 9:24-27)
Christians are compared to runners in a race, or athletes in competition. All runners run, but only one receives the prize.
That's another example of limitations of analogies. It does not mean that only one will gain eternal life, it means a relatively few number will gain it.
The prize is eternal life, symbolized by the crown. Here, the crown is called the crown that will last forever. It lasts forever because the crown symbolizes the prize of eternal life, which lasts forever.
You do not just sit in a corner and believe you will win; you must actively work for it, just like any athlete.
When Paul became aware that he was about to die, he said:
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.(2 Tim. 4:6-8)
The time for his departure is near. The athletic analogy again - I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race. There's the race of the runners again.
His life is about to end, and he knows he is about to receive the prize of eternal life --- the crown. There's the crown again, here called the crown of righteousness, because the prize of eternal life is awarded to the righteous.
When will the crown of righteousness be awarded as a prize to the one who finished the race? On judgment day.
That's why the verse says "the Lord, the righteous judge, will award it to me on that day." He calls the Lord the righteous judge because he's talking about judgment day when he said, "on that day."
====================================
The crown is described similarly in other verses. They are not different crowns, and they are not literal crowns. They all refer to the same thing --- eternal life.
The crown of glory, because of the glory of eternal life that does not fade:
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (1 Peter 5:4)
The victor's crown, because the victor will win the prize of eternal life:
Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. (Rev. 2:8 )
Note that it is the crown of the victor, or the winner, as in the winner in a runners' race. Note also that you run until the point of death, since your death is the finish line. Note finally that you receive the crown after your death, and the crown symbolizes life. Of course it means eternal life, since you will be given life "as your victor's crown" after your death.
The crown of life, because you gain eternal life, not eternal damnation:
12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. (James 1:12)
=====================================
Don't believe passively. Press on towards the goal --- to win the heavenward prize:
14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:14)
Post by: barrister on Sep 17, 2015 at 10:09 PM
So what kind of faith did James clarified which was sufficient?
Where in the bible does James clarify that there is a kind of faith that is sufficient?
Post by: dpogs on Sep 18, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Thanks for the reply.
The prize is eternal life.
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor. 9:24-27)
Christians are compared to runners in a race, or athletes in competition. All runners run, but only one receives the prize.
That's another example of limitations of analogies. It does not mean that only one will gain eternal life, it means a relatively few number will gain it.
The prize is eternal life, symbolized by the crown. Here, the crown is called the crown that will last forever. It lasts forever because the crown symbolizes the prize of eternal life, which lasts forever.
You do not just sit in a corner and believe you will win; you must actively work for it, just like any athlete.
When Paul became aware that he was about to die, he said:
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.(2 Tim. 4:6-8)
The time for his departure is near. The athletic analogy again - I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race. There's the race of the runners again.
His life is about to end, and he knows he is about to receive the prize of eternal life --- the crown. There's the crown again, here called the crown of righteousness, because the prize of eternal life is awarded to the righteous.
When will the crown of righteousness be awarded as a prize to the one who finished the race? On judgment day.
That's why the verse says "the Lord, the righteous judge, will award it to me on that day." He calls the Lord the righteous judge because he's talking about judgment day when he said, "on that day."
====================================
The crown is described similarly in other verses. They are not different crowns, and they are not literal crowns. They all refer to the same thing --- eternal life.
The crown of glory, because of the glory of eternal life that does not fade:
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (1 Peter 5:4)
The victor's crown, because the victor will win the prize of eternal life:
Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. (Rev. 2:8 )
Note that it is the crown of the victor, or the winner, as in the winner in a running race. Note also that you run until the point of death, since your death is the finish line. Note finally that you receive the crown after your death, and the crown symbolizes life. Of course it means eternal life, since you will be given life "as your victor's crown" after your death.
The crown of life, because you gain eternal life, not eternal damnation:
12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. (James 1:12)
=====================================
Don't believe passively. Press on towards the goal --- to win the heavenward prize:
14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:14)
Ahh ayon... well i just want to say this... ang lagi mong sinasabi - "it is unbiblical"... if you believe salvation is a prize then "it is unbiblical". if you believe salvation is something we need to earned and hard work is needed to obtain it then "it is unbiblical".
Salvation is not a prize that we need to earned by doing good works in order to obtain it. It is freely given to us as a gift. 'A gift" is very different to "a prize".
A gift such as salvation is given freely, offered freely, all we need to do is accept it and put all our faith and confidence to the One who gave it that whatever gift He offered He will fullfill it. A prize is something we earned, something we work for. Salvation is by grace, if it is by grace then it is no more works. If we add works to grace then it is no more grace.
Every Christian must run a race not to obtain eternal salvation because they are already have it, but because God rewards faithful servants/Christians.
God gave eternal salvation to those who have genuine faith on Him (period) and rewards/prize only to those who have faith on Him according to their works. And if those who have genuine faith did nothing here on earth there will be no rewards awaiting for Him but still going to heaven (only no rewards).
If we say that we need to do good work to earn our salvation, then it is just like to say that Jesus sacrifice and death on the cross is in vain. Jesus Christ completed the salvation and offered it to us freely, we dont need to work for that. What we need is to put all our trust and confidence on that saving grace of Jesus Christ. We need to recognize in ourselves that we dont have the ability to meet God's standards by doing good works. We need to recognize that what Jesus did on the cross is enough, sufficient and complete as a payment for our sins. Salvation is of God's work, it is not our work.
For Faith only ... Romans 4:4-6 (Amplified Bible)
"4 Now to a laborer, his wages are not credited as a favor or a gift, but as an obligation [something owed to him]. 5 But to the one who does not work [that is, the one who does not try to earn his salvation by doing good], but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is [a]credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God). 6 And in this same way David speaks of the blessing on the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:"
And what about the "WORK" James is referring to? I believe it is referring to good works as a natural result of our genuine faith ... RIGHT BELIEVING WILL PRODUCE RIGHT LIVING.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 18, 2015 at 11:51 AM
Where in the bible does James clarify that there is a kind of faith that is sufficient?
The kind of faith that James is not dead by which he said "21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. "
And then he went on saying "so faith without deeds is dead.".
The faith that is sufficient is that faith that was made complete by deeds.
Sinabi mong ikaw ay ligtas sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya, pero ano ang pruheva o ebidensya ng pananampalataya na yan.
Sa gawa ko makikita kung anong pananampalataya meron ako kaya ako ay matuwid.
Ibig sabihiin yung pananampalayata na ibinigay sa iyo kakakitaan ng gawa na siyang nagpapasakdal ng pananampalataya.
so faith without deeds is dead
The faith that is needed is the faith that is alive.
Faith pa rin po ang centro ng usapan.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 18, 2015 at 12:55 PM
Thanks for the reply.
The prize is eternal life.
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor. 9:24-27)
Christians are compared to runners in a race, or athletes in competition. All runners run, but only one receives the prize.
That's another example of limitations of analogies. It does not mean that only one will gain eternal life, it means a relatively few number will gain it.
The prize is eternal life, symbolized by the crown. Here, the crown is called the crown that will last forever. It lasts forever because the crown symbolizes the prize of eternal life, which lasts forever.
You do not just sit in a corner and believe you will win; you must actively work for it, just like any athlete.
When Paul became aware that he was about to die, he said:
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.(2 Tim. 4:6-8)
The time for his departure is near. The athletic analogy again - I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race. There's the race of the runners again.
His life is about to end, and he knows he is about to receive the prize of eternal life --- the crown. There's the crown again, here called the crown of righteousness, because the prize of eternal life is awarded to the righteous.
When will the crown of righteousness be awarded as a prize to the one who finished the race? On judgment day.
That's why the verse says "the Lord, the righteous judge, will award it to me on that day." He calls the Lord the righteous judge because he's talking about judgment day when he said, "on that day."
====================================
The crown is described similarly in other verses. They are not different crowns, and they are not literal crowns. They all refer to the same thing --- eternal life.
The crown of glory, because of the glory of eternal life that does not fade:
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (1 Peter 5:4)
The victor's crown, because the victor will win the prize of eternal life:
Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. (Rev. 2:8 )
Note that it is the crown of the victor, or the winner, as in the winner in a running race. Note also that you run until the point of death, since your death is the finish line. Note finally that you receive the crown after your death, and the crown symbolizes life. Of course it means eternal life, since you will be given life "as your victor's crown" after your death.
The crown of life, because you gain eternal life, not eternal damnation:
12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. (James 1:12)
=====================================
Don't believe passively. Press on towards the goal --- to win the heavenward prize:
14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:14)
Kawawa naman itong criminal na ito inde man lang niya ginawa yung sinasabi ni barrister.
Ni righteousness wala yung criminal kaya naparusahan.
Sa tinggin nyo according to the explanation ni barrister may eternal life kaya yung criminal na sinasabe sa ibaba?
Quote
40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. ”
43Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Post by: barrister on Sep 18, 2015 at 01:43 PM
Ahh ayon... well i just want to say this... ang lagi mong sinasabi - "it is unbiblical"... if you believe salvation is a prize then "it is unbiblical". if you believe salvation is something we need to earned and hard work is needed to obtain it then "it is unbiblical".
Ok lang yon sir. I won't be offended if you say my views are unbiblical, hindi na kailangang magpasintabi.
But note that I gave 6 bible citations explaining the prize and the crown. You failed to cite even one verse supporting your understanding of what the prize and the crown mean.
Salvation is not a prize that we need to earned by doing good works in order to obtain it. It is freely given to us as a gift. 'A gift" is very different to "a prize".
A gift such as salvation is given freely, offered freely, all we need to do is accept it and put all our faith and confidence to the One who gave it that whatever gift He offered He will fullfill it. A prize is something we earned, something we work for. Salvation is by grace, if it is by grace then it is no more works. If we add works to grace then it is no more grace.
When the bible says you are saved, it means you are sure of eternal life now, if you die now. It does not mean you are guaranteed eternal life no matter what you do.
The gift of salvation is conditional.
If a billionaire says he will give a thousand pesos to everyone who knocks on his door within the next 24 hours, the thousand pesos is a free gift, but with a condition.
You will be given a thousand pesos not because you worked for him as an employee, but because the giver just wanted to give it to the guy who complies with his condition. If he doesn't want to offer the thousand pesos for just knocking, there's nothing you can do to make him freely give that offer.
The same is true with salvation. It is a gift with a condition - that you abide in Him. And you abide in Him by keeping His commandments:
23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. 24 Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. ... (1 John 3:23-24)
If the billionaire doesn't want to willingly give the offer, that's his right. Nothing anyone can do can ever change that. That's why it's not by your works that the offer was made; it was by the grace of the billionaire that you were given the offer.
So, if the billionaire decides to give a thousand pesos just for knocking on his door, that's a gift that is undeserved. It's not an employee's wage for work.
However, it's a gift with a condition - knock on his door within 24 hours.
How will the knocker be judged? By his compliance or non-compliance with the condition:
6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. (Rom. 2:6-7)
The basis of judgment? According to what they have done. Not just doing good works, but persistently doing good works.
Akala ko ba wala nang kailangang gawin?
That is why "faith alone" is not sufficient. There are many things that must be added to faith:
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. (2 Pet. 1:5-7)
Every Christian must run a race not to obtain eternal salvation because they are already have it, but because God rewards faithful servants/Christians.
No, that's not right.
Christians don't have eternal life while they are still physically alive. They only have the promise of eternal life while they are still flesh and blood. How can they have eternal life now, when they are not yet resurrected?
When the bible says you are saved, it means you have the promise of salvation now.
But there are conditions:
11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11-12)
God has given us the promise of eternal life. We don't have eternal life now, because we're still flesh and blood. But we do have the promise of eternal life now.
To receive eternal life after the resurrection, the condition is that we should have the Son.
12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:12-13)
We say you believe in the name of the Son if you have the Son in you. The Son is in you if you keep His commands, and this is how you know you are in Him.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3-6)
How do we get eternal life? We keep His commands. That's faith + work, not "faith alone."
God gave eternal salvation to those who have genuine faith on Him (period) and rewards/prize only to those who have faith on Him according to their works. And if those who have genuine faith did nothing here on earth there will be no rewards awaiting for Him but still going to heaven (only no rewards).
You say faith without works can be considered genuine faith.
You've said a lot of unbiblical things before, but this has to be one of the worst.
If we say that we need to do good work to earn our salvation, then it is just like to say that Jesus sacrifice and death on the cross is in vain. Jesus Christ completed the salvation and offered it to us freely, we dont need to work for that. What we need is to put all our trust and confidence on that saving grace of Jesus Christ. We need to recognize in ourselves that we dont have the ability to meet God's standards by doing good works. We need to recognize that what Jesus did on the cross is enough, sufficient and complete as a payment for our sins. Salvation is of God's work, it is not our work.
I've explained this over and over again, but all you do is repeat what you said before.
If you want to contradict my explanation, point out where I'm wrong. Don't just repeat what you said previously.
Jesus' death on the cross is complete. Without it, the plan of salvation cannot take effect, no matter what we do.
Now that Jesus died and was resurrected, the plan of salvation is effective.
We comply with the conditions of salvation and we will be saved. Our past sins are forgiven, we are washed. Now we follow the commands of Christ and we will receive eternal life.
Yes, the sacrifice of Jesus is complete. "Complete," meaning we don't have to do anything? Yes, we don't have to do anything so that the plan of salvation can take effect. Salvation is now open to all, whether Jews or Gentiles.
"Complete," meaning we don't have to do anything to gain eternal life? No. It means "complete" for the purpose of giving effectivity to the plan. Now that the plan is in effect, you follow the rules of the effective plan so that you can gain eternal life. You comply with the conditions of the plan of salvation, now that the plan has taken effect.
Are good works required? Yes. You will be judged according to your deeds:
12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. (Rev. 22:12)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (Rev. 2:13)
For Faith only ... Romans 4:4-6 (Amplified Bible)
"4 Now to a laborer, his wages are not credited as a favor or a gift, but as an obligation [something owed to him]. 5 But to the one who does not work [that is, the one who does not try to earn his salvation by doing good], but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is [a]credited to him as righteousness (right standing with God). 6 And in this same way David speaks of the blessing on the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:"
And what about the "WORK" James is referring to? I believe it is referring to good works as a natural result of our genuine faith ... RIGHT BELIEVING WILL PRODUCE RIGHT LIVING.
Yes, James is referring to good works apart from the law of Moses. The works that must come with correct faith.
But Paul (in Romans 4) is referring to works of the law of Moses.
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works (Rom. 4:4-6)
A laborer's wages are given because the master owes the laborer his wages. It is the master's obligation to pay the wage, so the wage is not a gift, it was something earned by the employee, and an obligation of the employer.
The one who does not work refers to the one who does not work for wages. It does not mean he is not working; it means he still works, but he does not work as an employee.
Post by: barrister on Sep 18, 2015 at 02:16 PM
The kind of faith that James is not dead by which he said "21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. "
Tama. Faith + good works nga yon.
And then he went on saying "so faith without deeds is dead.".
The faith that is sufficient is that faith that was made complete by deeds.
Ganon nga ang sinasabi ko. Faith + good works.
Sinabi mong ikaw ay ligtas sa pamamagitan ng pananampalataya, pero ano ang pruheva o ebidensya ng pananampalataya na yan.
Sa gawa ko makikita kung anong pananampalataya meron ako kaya ako ay matuwid.
Ibig sabihiin yung pananampalayata na ibinigay sa iyo kakakitaan ng gawa na siyang nagpapasakdal ng pananampalataya.
so faith without deeds is dead.
Tama. Ganon nga ang sabi ko.
Hindi puwedeng faith alone. Dapat faith + works.
so faith without deeds is dead
The faith that is needed is the faith that is alive.
Faith pa rin po ang centro ng usapan.
O, pinilit mo na namang ibalik sa "faith alone."
Hindi faith ang sentro ng usapan sa James (Santiago). Faith ang sentro ng issue kay Pablo, kasi distinguished from works of the law ang kay Pablo.
Pero kay Santiago, ang issue, yung mga puro faith na lang. Nililinaw ni Santiago na hindi ibig sabihin na pag inalis ang works of the law, dapat lahat ng works aalisin din. Hindi raw ganon. Faith must be accompanied by good works, not of the law, but good works apart from the law.
Post by: barrister on Sep 18, 2015 at 02:27 PM
Kawawa naman itong criminal na ito inde man lang niya ginawa yung sinasabi ni barrister.
Ni righteousness wala yung criminal kaya naparusahan.
Sa tinggin nyo according to the explanation ni barrister may eternal life kaya yung criminal na sinasabe sa ibaba?
40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. ”
43Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
Kinontra ba yan ng sinabi ko? Hindi siguro.
Merong righteousness ang mabuting magnanakaw.
Magnanakaw pa lang siya noong napatawan siya ng death penalty ng mga Romano. Paano siyang maliligtas? Faith + works.
Nagkaroon ba siya ng faith? Yes, naniwala at sumampalataya siya kay Hesus.
Nagkaroon ba siya ng works? Yes, pinagsabihan niya yung isang magnanakaw, pinagtanggol sii Hesus, at hiniling kay Hesus ma makasama siya sa paraiso.
Ano yon, walang faith? Naniwala nga siya at sumampalataya kay Kristo. Ano ginawa niya sa faith na yon, tumahimik, pumikit at nag-meditate? Hindi. Pinagsabihan niya yung isang magnanakaw, pinagtanggol niya si Hesus, hiniling na makasama siya sa paraiso. E di may works din na kasama ang faith.
Mali pa rin ang faith + works? Wala na kong magagawa sa yo... :D
Post by: pTrader on Sep 18, 2015 at 02:34 PM
Kinontra ba yan ng sinabi ko? Hindi siguro.
Merong righteousness ang mabuting magnanakaw.
Bago siya nagbago, napatawan siya ng death penalty ng mga Romano. Paano siyang maliligtas? Faith + works.
Nagkaroon ba siya ng faith? Yes, naniwala at sumampalataya siya kay Hesus.
Nagkaroon ba siya ng works? Yes, pinagsabihan niya yung isang magnanakaw, pinagtanggol sii Hesus, at hiniling kay Hesus ma makasama siya sa paraiso.
Ano yon, walang faith? Naniwala nga siya at sumampalataya kay Kritso. Ano ginawa niya sa faith na yon, tumahimik, pumikit at nag-meditate? Hindi. Pinagsabihan niya yung isang magnanakaw, pinagtanggol niya si Hesus, hiniling na makasama siya sa paraiso.
Mali pa rin ang faith + works? Wala na kong magagawa sa yo... :D
how does your explanation below apply in the case of the criminal?
Unto which of the explanation below prove that he received "the prize"?
and what is the crown he received?
Thanks for the reply.
The prize is eternal life.
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor. 9:24-27)
Christians are compared to runners in a race, or athletes in competition. All runners run, but only one receives the prize.
That's another example of limitations of analogies. It does not mean that only one will gain eternal life, it means a relatively few number will gain it.
The prize is eternal life, symbolized by the crown. Here, the crown is called the crown that will last forever. It lasts forever because the crown symbolizes the prize of eternal life, which lasts forever.
You do not just sit in a corner and believe you will win; you must actively work for it, just like any athlete.
When Paul became aware that he was about to die, he said:
6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.(2 Tim. 4:6-8)
The time for his departure is near. The athletic analogy again - I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race. There's the race of the runners again.
His life is about to end, and he knows he is about to receive the prize of eternal life --- the crown. There's the crown again, here called the crown of righteousness, because the prize of eternal life is awarded to the righteous.
When will the crown of righteousness be awarded as a prize to the one who finished the race? On judgment day.
That's why the verse says "the Lord, the righteous judge, will award it to me on that day." He calls the Lord the righteous judge because he's talking about judgment day when he said, "on that day."
====================================
The crown is described similarly in other verses. They are not different crowns, and they are not literal crowns. They all refer to the same thing --- eternal life.
The crown of glory, because of the glory of eternal life that does not fade:
4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (1 Peter 5:4)
The victor's crown, because the victor will win the prize of eternal life:
Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown. (Rev. 2:8 )
Note that it is the crown of the victor, or the winner, as in the winner in a running race. Note also that you run until the point of death, since your death is the finish line. Note finally that you receive the crown after your death, and the crown symbolizes life. Of course it means eternal life, since you will be given life "as your victor's crown" after your death.
The crown of life, because you gain eternal life, not eternal damnation:
12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. (James 1:12)
=====================================
Don't believe passively. Press on towards the goal --- to win the heavenward prize:
14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 3:14)
Post by: barrister on Sep 18, 2015 at 02:39 PM
Post by: pTrader on Sep 18, 2015 at 03:02 PM
Like I said, wala na kong magagawa sa yo sir.
or you do not have explanation at all...
Post by: barrister on Sep 18, 2015 at 03:09 PM
or you do not have explanation at all...
You have the right to think so.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 18, 2015 at 03:43 PM
You have the right to think so.Sir, salamat sa patience, kindness and sparing time replying my posts.
Appreciated sir...
muli salamat..
Post by: barrister on Sep 18, 2015 at 04:03 PM
Remember, kasama sa debates ang asaran. Normal lang yan, nothing personal.
Salamat din sa iyo sir..
Post by: dpogs on Sep 28, 2015 at 02:10 AM
Simula bata hanggang sa mag college ako ang pag-aakala ko sa isang kulto ay ang mga taong sumasamba sa demonyo, nag-aalay ng mga hayop (minsan tao :(), etc... - mali pala ako :):)
Tapos napunta sa ideya na sinumang grupo na taliwas ang paniniwala sa paniniwala ng majority sa isang lugar. Ex. kung ang majority ay mga satanista at kukunti lang ang naniniwala sa Diyos, kulto ang mga naniniwala sa Diyos. - medyo may tama ako ng kunti :):)
pero sa ngayon, I prefer to call certain religious organization a cult if its teaching includes 1 or more of the following:
1) Jesus is not God
2) Salvation is achieved by our own works
3) Jesus death was insufficient to pay for our sins
4) Salvation is by joining their religion or by being a member of their church
Post by: tony on Sep 28, 2015 at 08:50 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 28, 2015 at 09:46 AM
imho, religion is supposed to make a "better person" out of members....
Better is subjective. Hehe! What may be better for us may not be better for others. :D
Post by: tony on Sep 28, 2015 at 09:55 AM
Better is subjective. Hehe! What may be better for us may not be better for others. :D
eh yun lang "huwag kang magnakaw" better na nga, ayaw mo pa non?
eh kung dating magnanakaw o mamamatay tao nakakita ng liwanag
at nagbalik loob sa Diyos, di ba much better yon?
Post by: barrister on Sep 28, 2015 at 11:15 AM
pero sa ngayon, I prefer to call certain religious organization a cult if its teaching includes 1 or more of the following:
1) Jesus is not God
2) Salvation is achieved by our own works
3) Jesus death was insufficient to pay for our sins
4) Salvation is by joining their religion or by being a member of their church
Pag ganyan ang viewpoint, ang lalabas na definition ng kulto para sa iyo ay ganito:
A cult is any religious organization that disagrees with my beliefs. :D
Why not just cite the dictionary definition of a cult instead of inventing your own self-serving definition.
Post by: tony on Sep 28, 2015 at 11:28 AM
Post by: barrister on Sep 28, 2015 at 11:47 AM
http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-is-a-religious-cult/ (http://www.equip.org/perspectives/what-is-a-religious-cult/)
That definition is still self-serving.
Pareho rin ang sinasabi niyan. If your group has beliefs different from mine, your group is a cult.
Here's a neutral definition of a cult:
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members. (Oxford English dictionary)
Therefore, the determination of whether a group is a cult or not will depend on the views of the greater majority, not on the views of any particular group.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 28, 2015 at 04:01 PM
pero sa ngayon, I prefer to call certain religious organization a cult if its teaching includes 1 or more of the following:
1) Jesus is not God
2) Salvation is achieved by our own works
3) Jesus death was insufficient to pay for our sins
4) Salvation is by joining their religion or by being a member of their church
sabi nga sa kabilang thread, kung ganito ang definition ng kulto, pati ang Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. ay lalabas na kulto din pala at hindi relihiyon.
Post by: dpogs on Sep 28, 2015 at 05:16 PM
sabi nga sa kabilang thread, kung ganito ang definition ng kulto, pati ang Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. ay lalabas na kulto din pala at hindi relihiyon.
Its still a religion, and a cult i may say. Sabi nga relative na ang term na cult. Sa iba cult refers to minority... Kung ang term na cult ay nauso na sa panahon ni Jesus, Christianity can be considered as cult. :-)
Im afraid barriater is right, we usually call those who didnt share the same faith as cult. But for me i can only call a sect or religion a cult if they domt believe thate Jesus is God. Jehovah, mormom and INC are among them.
Post by: panzimus on Sep 28, 2015 at 05:20 PM
Im afraid barriater is right, we usually call those who didnt share the same faith as cult. But for me i can only call a sect or religion a cult if they domt believe thate Jesus is God. Jehovah, mormom and INC are among them.
I believe both Jehovah and mormons believe Jesus is God.
Post by: barrister on Sep 28, 2015 at 08:06 PM
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is an angel; specifically, the archangel Michael who took human form when he appeared on earth.
Mormonism, JW and INC are not considered cults in the proper sense of the word. The ones who consider them "cults" are their opponents, in an apparent effort to discredit the beliefs of those whose doctrines are different from their own.
Mormons should be distinguished from the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), a breakaway faction of the original LDS.
It is the FLDS that is correctly considered a cult. Former leader of the FLDS is Warren Jeffs, once in the FBI most wanted list, now serving a life sentence for aggravated sexual assault of children.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs)
Post by: panzimus on Sep 28, 2015 at 09:47 PM
kala ko all this time God din turing ng JW kay Jesus. Tanda ko nung bata ako, may kapitbahay ang lola ko na JW at binabasa ko yung parang kid's bible stories book nila kasi may mga pictures unlike yung bible ng lola ko na as in...bible. hehehehe!
Post by: barrister on Sep 28, 2015 at 10:31 PM
Kung interesado ka sir, magandang study din yan. Bigyan kita ng additional doctrines of the Mormons:
Mormons were originally polygamists because they believe polygamy to be a righteous principle that is part of their doctrines. In the 1890s, they officially abandoned polygamy after criminal prosecution was brought against them by the US government.
Mormons believe God the Father was once a man who dwelt on earth, then later became God. The Father, also a polygamist, had many wives.
Jesus was the Father's first son. Jesus was also a polygamist. Jesus is the "spirit brother" of Satan, since they are both sons of the Father from his various polygamous relationships.
Jesus is God, but he was once a man who became a God, just like the Father.
Jesus is the savior of this earth. But there are many earths, meaning, many other planets inhabited by other humans, and there are other saviors for those other earths. The doctrine of other worlds and other saviors is found in Mormon Scripture (called the Book of Mormon).
Kaya marami ngang weirdong doctrines sa iba-ibang religions. Yung iba, kulto na agad ang label sa Mormons, kahit hindi pa alam yung mga matitinding doktrina ng Mormons. Kung alam lang nila ang mga doktrina ng Mormons, baka hindi lang kulto ang itawag nila diyan ... :D
==================================
Why do Mormons have so many children? Because they believe it's their duty to have as many kids as possible. That's why they were originally polygamists.
Browse an ex-Mormon forum: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,897005,897376 (http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,897005,897376)
Dr. Cecil Jacobson was a fertility doctor who told his female patients that he was artificially inseminating them using the specially treated sperm of their own husbands.
After investigation, it turned out that the doctor used his own sperm on his female patients.
Jacobson's wife said it shouldn't matter where the sperm came from, and the parents should be proud that the sperm came from a man like her husband. Dr. Jacobson believes he did nothing wrong.
What's the Jacobsons' religion? They're Mormons. Dr. Jacobson doesn't clarify that he did it because he believes it's his duty to have as many kids as possible, but I have a feeling that his religion had a lot to do with it... ;)
Betrayal of Trust
By Bill Hewitt
A Fertility Doctor Is Accused of Secretly Fathering as Many as 75 Children
March 09, 1992
FOR "MARY JAMES," STARTING A FAMILY hadn't been as easy as love, marriage and a baby carriage. For many years she had been unable to conceive, apparently because of her husband's low sperm count, so the couple went to infertility specialist Dr. Cecil Jacobson, who ran a clinic in Vienna, Va. "If you want a kid, you're going to have a kid," she says Jacobson told her. On the third try, using what they thought was a specially treated dose of the husband's sperm for artificial insemination, the Jameses did become parents—of twins. But their joy turned to outrage when they learned late last year that Jacobson had been indicted on fraud and perjury charges for, among other things, allegedly using his own sperm for artificial insemination—and that he was the biological father of their children. Moreover, according to prosecutors, Jacobson had misled other trusting patients and in fact may be the biological father of as many as 75 children.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20112183,00.html (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20112183,00.html)
Post by: panzimus on Sep 29, 2015 at 12:44 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 29, 2015 at 12:46 AM
Post by: sirhc on Sep 29, 2015 at 08:41 AM
Mormons din ata yun kamuntik nang makuha ang isang state sa US?
Utah? don't know if it was the main branch of Mormonism or a break-away group.
Post by: tony on Sep 29, 2015 at 08:42 AM
Utah? don't know if it was the main branch of Mormonism or a break-away group.
Mormons din ata yun kamuntik nang makuha ang isang state sa US?
you must be refering to UTAH, that is where the Mormons went to avoid persecution....
Post by: barrister on Sep 29, 2015 at 11:20 AM
Mormons din ata yun kamuntik nang makuha ang isang state sa US?
Not exactly.
Hindi yung parang meron nang state of Utah, tapos muntik maging independent ang Utah. Ang totoo, nag-settle ang LDS sa Utah before it was the state of Utah, and even before it was known as the "Utah Territory."
The LDS was founded by Joseph Smith in New York the 1830s, then they moved from state to state. Smith was killed, then Brigham Young took over as LDS leader.
In 1847, Young settled the LDS in the Great Salt Lake Valley. In 1850, the region became incorporated as the Utah Territory, and Young became the governor. A few years later, the LDS openly taught their previously secret practice of plural marriage. But I don't think they ever advocated secession.
Young was already dead when the US Supreme Court ruled that the polygamy prohibition was valid and was not covered by freedom of religion.
US-Utah relations improved, then Utah became a US state in 1896. Later, the LDS abandoned their practice of polygamy.
In the 1980s, a small faction formed their own group, whch later became known as the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), which continued the practice of polygamy.
Post by: pTrader on Sep 29, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 29, 2015 at 11:48 AM
^usapang laminang ginto
May nabasa din ako dati diyan, may na-discover daw na jewel or stone used by Joseph to help him interpret the bible. Hehe!
Post by: barrister on Sep 29, 2015 at 01:23 PM
The stones were not used by Smith to interpret the bible, but to translate the writings on the golden plates.
Joseph Smith says the stones were given to him by an angel, together with the golden plates. The golden plates are the source of the Book of Mormon (the sacred text of the LDS).
Using Urim and Thummim, Smith translated the writings on the plates, which became the source of the Book of Mormon.
Nasaan na ngayon ang golden plates? Sabi ni Smith, wala na raw, kasi kinuha uli ng angel... :D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim_(Latter_Day_Saints) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim_(Latter_Day_Saints))
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates)
Post by: pTrader on Sep 29, 2015 at 01:55 PM
Urim and Thummim yan sir. They are the seer stones of Joseph Smith.
The stones were not used by Smith to interpret the bible, but to translate the writings on the golden plates.
Joseph Smith says the stones were given to him by an angel, together with the golden plates. The golden plates are the source of the Book of Mormon (the sacred text of the LDS).
Using Urim and Thummim, Smith translated the writings on the plates, which became the source of the Book of Mormon.
Nasaan na ngayon ang golden plates? Sabi ni Smith, wala na raw, kasi kinuha uli ng angel... :D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim_(Latter_Day_Saints) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim_(Latter_Day_Saints))
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates)
Filipino ba yang angel na yan?
Post by: barrister on Sep 29, 2015 at 02:12 PM
Filipino ba yang angel na yan?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/MORONI2.JPG/220px-MORONI2.JPG)
Di ko makita yung mukha sa temple statue, ang taas e... :D
Post by: pTrader on Sep 29, 2015 at 03:12 PM
hahahaha :D
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/MORONI2.JPG/220px-MORONI2.JPG)
Di ko makita yung mukha sa temple statue, ang taas e... :D
Post by: sirhc on Sep 29, 2015 at 05:36 PM
Post by: tony on Sep 29, 2015 at 07:15 PM
Post by: sirhc on Oct 05, 2015 at 08:38 AM
Ganito na ba lagi ang mararanasan natin sa NLEX tuwing may malaking event ang iglesia slow moving ang papunta ng manila sa nlex bago mag philippine arena kasi binuksan ung isang lane para mag counter flow. Traffic na kasi sa kabila dahil sa pila papunta philippine arena na sinakop na nila ang 3 lanes.
(http://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad139/GIJ03/IMG_03841_zps6zgztn6p.jpg)
^They got quite a few Guinness World Record out of it though. Wooo!!! Proud to be INC!! pfft. They think owning a bunch of Guinness World Records are an achievement? Why don't make the guy who owns the longest fingernail a run for his money and get that world record as well?
We as a nation should really put things into perspective ang get our priorities right. Their obsession with World Records is already becoming childish and stupid. Do their leaders have childhood issues and get their affirmation fix from a book the gets stuck on a corner in a library somewhere? I want to see this as how INC members see this as well. I get how localities strive to get into this novelty thing out of improving their tourism numbers - like all the tourist traps weve all been through somewhere - But a religious group?
Post by: tony on Oct 05, 2015 at 08:43 AM
so i am not at all surprised, and as you know, Pilipinos have a penchant for the talangka...')
Post by: dpogs on Oct 05, 2015 at 09:10 AM
tao lang din naman ang mga pinuno ng simbahan na yan, they are not saints.....
so i am not at all surprised, and as you know, Pilipinos have a penchant for the talangka...')
Those who truly believe in God were/are called "saints" in the Bible. If we truly believe in God, in His power of saving our souls, then we are saints and good works will always manifest in us.
If we cant see any good works in them, then their faith is questionable before our eyes.
Post by: barrister on Oct 05, 2015 at 09:55 AM
We as a nation should really put things into perspective ang get our priorities right. Their obsession with World Records is already becoming childish and stupid. Do their leaders have childhood issues and get their affirmation fix from a book the gets stuck on a corner in a library somewhere? I want to see this as how INC members see this as well. I get how localities strive to get into this novelty thing out of improving their tourism numbers - like all the tourist traps weve all been through somewhere - But a religious group?
This trend is a new approach of the new INC leadership. There was no such trend under their old leaderships.
Me, I place the blame on the government.
Why did the local government give construction permits for their INC Arena, when it should have been obvious that existing infrastructure would not be able to accommodate the congestion?
Why does the government continue to believe that a religious group with only 2 million members, which is only 2% of the population, can possibly have the numbers to actually vote a president into office?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 05, 2015 at 10:36 AM
This trend is a new approach of the new INC leadership. There was no such trend under their old leaderships.
Me, I place the blame on the government.
Why did the local government give construction permits for their INC Arena, when it should have been obvious that existing infrastructure would not be able to accommodate the congestion?
Why does the government continue to believe that a religious group with only 2 million members, which is only 2% of the population, can possibly have the numbers to actually vote a president into office?
same with the BBL...
Post by: tony on Oct 05, 2015 at 12:17 PM
This trend is a new approach of the new INC leadership. There was no such trend under their old leaderships.
Me, I place the blame on the government.
Why did the local government give construction permits for their INC Arena, when it should have been obvious that existing infrastructure would not be able to accommodate the congestion?
Why does the government continue to believe that a religious group with only 2 million members, which is only 2% of the population, can possibly have the numbers to actually vote a president into office?
merely 2% but their tentacles reach out, really reach out...
Post by: tony on Oct 05, 2015 at 12:18 PM
Those who truly believe in God were/are called "saints" in the Bible. If we truly believe in God, in His power of saving our souls, then we are saints and good works will always manifest in us.
If we cant see any good works in them, then their faith is questionable before our eyes.
i will not debate you on the "saint" part....they are men serving earthly pursuits...
Post by: barrister on Oct 05, 2015 at 01:00 PM
Si dpogs was talking about the term in biblical usage (one who is "in Christ"), as distinguished from Catholic definition (one who is already in heaven).
But from the context of your post, you were only using the term in its ordinary usage, in reference to a holy person, in the sense of a metonymy in figure of speech. It's a common expression to say, "they are no saints."
Malinaw naman na walang technical meaning na sinasabi. Baka side note lang yung kay sir dpogs.
Post by: tony on Oct 05, 2015 at 01:54 PM
but then, what good is it really? all this talk about religion if not to glorify Him,
by upliting humanity so that they can in turn worhship Him.......
Post by: Clondalkin on Oct 07, 2015 at 08:05 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 07, 2015 at 08:41 PM
It may happen anytime, puwede bukas or mamya, but to give an exact date or time ay isang malaking kahangalan.
Post by: barrister on Oct 07, 2015 at 08:47 PM
Oct 7 is almost done in Asia but it's still early in the West. Any signs of the predicted (by some religious) end of the world?
Signs of the end of the world or signs that the loonies are still here? :D
Only one group is predicting that.
Harold Camping, a Christian radio host, predicted:
- That Jesus will return to earth - May 21, 2011. Wrong. He revised the prophecy, saying that he correctly predicted the spiritual judgment of May 21, 2011.
- That Jesus will physically return to earth, and earth will be destroyed - Oct. 21, 2011. Wrong again.
In 2012, Camping admitted that his predictions were wrong. He died in 2013.
Now, Chris McCann, the leader of the Christian group eBible Fellowship, says Oct. 7, 2015 will be the end of the world.
McCann says his prediction is based on Camping's predictions. May 21, 2011 was the beginning of God's judgment. The end of the world will come 1,600 days after the beginning of God's judgment, which falls on Oct. 7, 2015.
Post by: barrister on Oct 07, 2015 at 09:06 PM
What? Meron nagpost dito ng exact date kung kailan ang end of the world? :-o :-o
It may happen anytime, puwede bukas or mamya, but to give an exact date or time ay isang malaking kahangalan.
Ako, sigurado akong hindi bukas o mamaya.
Nasaan ang seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls of wrath? Wala pa, di ba?
The sun should turn to darkness and the moon blood red. Wala pa rin.
Has Christ returned without us knowing about it? No. The bible says when Christ returns, every eye shall see Him. It would be impossible for anyone to be unaware of Christ's return, if He has indeed returned.
Well, if according to scripture, every eye is supposed to see Him, and my eye did not see Him, then it means He hasn't returned... ;)
Post by: Clondalkin on Oct 07, 2015 at 09:57 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 07, 2015 at 09:58 PM
If we are really a believer and end of times comes mamya and we re still alive, we will never see the second coming of Jesus Christ because we will be on His side when He comes.
I believe the start of end of world will come like a theif in the night. Well never know when it will happen. That is why no one can say that "sigurado ako na hindi yan mangyayari mamya o bukas". By the way the start of end of world is prosperity.
Post by: typ2audio on Oct 07, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 07, 2015 at 10:11 PM
Anong masasabi nyo sa magulang na ayaw binyagan ang anak nya, with the reason na hihintayin daw nya magka isip ang anak nyak ung gusto nyang magka relihiyon o hindi?
Baptism is a personal decision, to join a religion should be a personal decision, to believe in God should always be a personal decision, we can guide our sons and daughter to believe in God and His teaching but we dont force them nor decide on behalf of them kung ano magiging religion nila. But we can guide them and teach them our faith so that whem they grow old they will not depart from it.
That is what i am doing to my daughter.
Post by: barrister on Oct 07, 2015 at 11:03 PM
It says it comes like a thief in the night. In a twinkling of an eye. I believe that is the start of the end of the world. And if that happens later o mamya, i believe i will never see the coming of Jesus but will be on His side when He comes.
If we are really a believer and end of times comes mamya and we re still alive, we will never see the second coming of Jesus Christ because we will be on His side when He comes.
I believe the start of end of world will come like a theif in the night. Well never know when it will happen. That is why no one can say that "sigurado ako na hindi yan mangyayari mamya o bukas". By the way the start of end of world is prosperity.
Hindi ganon ang meaning ng thief in the night.
Yes, pag sinabing thief in the night, it means it will come unexpectedly.
But it does not mean it will come unexpectedly to all. It will only come unexpectedly to those who are in darkness. It will not come unexpectedly to those who are in the light.
Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
4 But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all children of the light and children of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober. (1 Thes. 5:1-6)
Kita mo na.
Those who are children of the light will not be surprised as one is surprised by a thief, because they will be awake and sober, waiting and watching for the Lord's return.
Those who are in darkness are the ones who will be surprised, because they belong to the night or darkness, and they will be asleep when the Lord comes, which to them will be like a thief in the night.
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Mt. 24:37-39)
"As it was in the days of Noah" --- It means that those who did not believe Noah were surprised, but those who believed Noah were not surprised.
In those days, the prophet Noah warned the people about the coming flood, but they did not believe him. That's why they knew nothing about the coming flood.
But if they believed in Noah's warnings of repentance and the coming flood, then they would not have been surprised. That's why the 7 other members of Noah's family were not surprised, because they believed the warning.
Therefore, the flood came like a thief in the night to those who did not believe, but it did not come like a thief in the night to those who believed --- namely, Noah and his family.
That is how it will be when Christ returns.
Not everyone will be surprised. You will be taken by surprise if you do not believe God's word. But if you believe, you will not be surprised when Christ returns --- As it was in the days of Noah.
Is it possible to know the exact date and time of Jesus' return?
No, because only the Father knows that.
But it will be possible for us to discern when that time is near, and when that time is not yet near. The discernment will be similar to knowing when a change of seasons is near:
32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. (Mt. 24:32-33)
Therefore, it is possible for us to know that Christ's return will definitely not be tomorrow, because that will only be a matter of one day, not a matter of years or decades.
In the same manner, we can see signs that summer is approaching, and we can be sure that the season will not change instantly from winter to summer in the span of just one day.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. (Mt. 24:26-30)
Has the distress of the "abomination of desolation" occurred? No. Have the sun and moon darkened, stars fallen from the sky, and heavenly bodies shaken? No.
Then it will not be tomorrow.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 08, 2015 at 12:01 AM
Specifically, I am talking about the rapture. In a twinkling of an eye. No one really knows. If it tomorrow or later. then, that the start of end of the world. prosperity then tribulation then those signs in heaven, then descend of Jesus Christ.
The rapture will be secret and instant (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). > this is what I am talking about thief in the night. In a twinkling of an eye. This will happen anytime pwede mamya or bukas. any moment. no one knows.
The second coming will be visible to all (Revelation 1:7; Matthew 24:29-30). > I think this is what you're referring there will be great tribulation, seven horses etc, and the second coming of Christ
also those signs you're describing may happen anytime... maybe later or tomorrow :) then the descend of Jesus Christ.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 11:17 AM
I think you're referring to actual descending/coming of Christ. As I said, for me the start of end of world is prosperity. I am referring to start of end of world. I am not talking about the descending of Christ. Because if that happens, I will not witness the descending of Christ since I will be with Him when he descend.
Specifically, I am talking about the rapture. In a twinkling of an eye. No one really knows. If it tomorrow or later. then, that the start of end of the world. prosperity then tribulation then those signs in heaven, then descend of Jesus Christ.
The rapture will be secret and instant (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). > this is what I am talking about thief in the night. In a twinkling of an eye. This will happen anytime pwede mamya or bukas. any moment. no one knows.
The second coming will be visible to all (Revelation 1:7; Matthew 24:29-30). > I think this is what you're referring there will be great tribulation, seven horses etc, and the second coming of Christ
also those signs you're describing may happen anytime... maybe later or tomorrow :) then the descend of Jesus Christ.
sir, inde na secrect yung end of the world naipahayag na yan at nasulata pa sa Kasulatan. at wala na pong secret secret kaya nga may Kasulatan.
Post by: typ2audio on Oct 08, 2015 at 11:19 AM
sir, inde na secrect yung end of the world naipahayag na yan at nasulata pa sa Kasulatan. at wala na pong secret secret kaya nga may Kasulatan.
Sinong sumulat ng kasulatan na yan? paano nyo maverify na hindi hokus pokus yon?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 11:47 AM
Sinong sumulat ng kasulatan na yan? paano nyo maverify na hindi hokus pokus yon?
sir yung pagbalik ng exact na oras ni Cristo inde sinabe pero yung tanda ng wakas nasulat na.
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 12:40 PM
I think you're referring to actual descending/coming of Christ. As I said, for me the start of end of world is prosperity. I am referring to start of end of world. I am not talking about the descending of Christ. Because if that happens, I will not witness the descending of Christ since I will be with Him when he descend.
Specifically, I am talking about the rapture. In a twinkling of an eye. No one really knows. If it tomorrow or later. then, that the start of end of the world. prosperity then tribulation then those signs in heaven, then descend of Jesus Christ.
The rapture will be secret and instant (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). > this is what I am talking about thief in the night. In a twinkling of an eye. This will happen anytime pwede mamya or bukas. any moment. no one knows.
The second coming will be visible to all (Revelation 1:7; Matthew 24:29-30). > I think this is what you're referring there will be great tribulation, seven horses etc, and the second coming of Christ
also those signs you're describing may happen anytime... maybe later or tomorrow :) then the descend of Jesus Christ.
Brader dpogs, we are not on the same page, kaya hindi tayo magkaintindihan.
You forgot what I said about the rapture:
Hindi ako naniniwala sa rapture sir.
Sa issue na yan, malayo na naman ang beliefs natin.
In my explanation in Reply 1864 above, what I am actually saying is that the doctrine of the secret rapture is not biblical. There is no secret rapture in the bible.
The thief in the night applies to those in the darkness, not to those in the light. The twinkling of an eye, referring to the resurrection of the dead, will not take the living believers by surprise, because there are signs that will come before the resurrection:
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (1 Cor. 15:51-52)
There will be seven trumpets. The last trumpet sounds, and the dead will resurrect in the twinkling of an eye. The first trumpet tells you that when the seventh trumpet comes, that's when the dead will resurrect. Paanong naging secret and surprise yon, kung 7 trumpets nga ang nag-announce?
Yet even before the seven trumpets, there will be other prior signs like the seven seals. That's why it will cannot be a secret, and it cannot be a surprise to the believers.
On this issue, we are so far apart that we will never be able to agree.
And that's why this is another issue that we should simply treat as a presentation of two different viewpoints.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 12:51 PM
Brader dpogs, we are not on the same page, kaya hindi tayo magkaintindihan.
You forgot what I said about the rapture:
In my explanation above, I what am actually saying is that the doctrine of the secret rapture is not biblical. There is no secret rapture in the bible.
On this issue, we are so far apart that we will never be able to agree.
That's why this is another issue that we should treat as a presentation of two different viewpoints.
agree, wala talagang secret rapture.
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 12:54 PM
At least lumilinaw ang mga doctrinal differences natin.
Tayo naman ang mag discuss, sir.
Sabi mo, walang secret rapture. Bakit ganito ang sinasabi sa Mt. 24:40-41:
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024#fen-NIV-23994f)] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. (Mt. 24: 36-41)
One will be taken and the other one left. It means may secret rapture? Na-rapture yung isa, pero hindi na-rapture yung isa? ;)
That's one of the proof verses of the secret rapture groups. Binigay ko na kay sir dpogs yung matibay na proof verse nila. ;)
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 02:04 PM
Ok lang yon, those are minor differences.
At least lumilinaw ang mga doctrinal differences natin.
Tayo naman ang mag discuss, sir.
Sabi mo, walang secret rapture. Bakit ganito ang sinasabi sa Mt. 24:40-41:
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024#fen-NIV-23994f)] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. (Mt. 24: 36-41)
One will be taken and the other one left. It means may secret rapture? Na-rapture yung isa, pero hindi na-rapture yung isa? ;)
That's one of the proof verses of the secret rapture groups. Binigay ko na kay sir dpogs yung matibay na proof verse nila. ;)
sa pagdating ng Panginoong Jesus, ihihiwalay lang naman yung mananampalataya at inde manamnampalataya.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 08, 2015 at 02:16 PM
Ok lang yon, those are minor differences.
At least lumilinaw ang mga doctrinal differences natin.
Tayo naman ang mag discuss, sir.
Sabi mo, walang secret rapture. Bakit ganito ang sinasabi sa Mt. 24:40-41:
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024#fen-NIV-23994f)] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. (Mt. 24: 36-41)
One will be taken and the other one left. It means may secret rapture? Na-rapture yung isa, pero hindi na-rapture yung isa? ;)
That's one of the proof verses of the secret rapture groups. Binigay ko na kay sir dpogs yung matibay na proof verse nila. ;)
Hindi ba verse yan for the 2nd coming of Jesus? It's not about rapture. It's about the end times. If you would continue sa verse 42-44:
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 08, 2015 at 03:29 PM
Di naman talaga secret ang rapture or ang second coming, the secret is the time, when will it happen. Kailan ba magaganap ang unang pakakak? Pwede mamya o bukas, o next month, walang nakakaalam.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 03:32 PM
Just like death, youll never kailan mangyayari piwede mamya o bukas. Though madlas may mga sign ang malapit nang mamatay. Old age, cancer terminal, hindi napuruham sa aksidente, etc.
Di naman talaga secret ang rapture or ang second coming, the secret is the time, when will it happen. Kailan ba magaganap ang unang pakakak? Pwede mamya o bukas, o next month, walang nakakaalam.
clarification lang, yung rapture ba na sinasabe mo yung pre-trib rapture? baka mali pag kaunawa ko..
Post by: dpogs on Oct 08, 2015 at 03:41 PM
clarification lang, yung rapture ba na sinasabe mo yung pre-trib rapture? baka mali pag kaunawa ko..
Yes, pre-trib, before Jesus descend for battle in armageddon.
Post by: hotrod on Oct 08, 2015 at 03:45 PM
Quote
36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. (Mt. 24: 36-41)
So who are the ones who are “taken” when Jesus comes? And who are those who are “left”?
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 03:49 PM
Hindi ba verse yan for the 2nd coming of Jesus? It's not about rapture. It's about the end times. If you would continue sa verse 42-44:
42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
I'm not the right person to ask.
I don't believe in the rapture. So if you say that verse is not about the rapture, then I will agree that it is not about the rapture, because there is no such thing as a rapture anywhere in the bible.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 08, 2015 at 03:51 PM
At ang mga son of God, those who were born again - born by the Spirit.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 08, 2015 at 03:53 PM
I'm not the right person to ask.
I don't believe in the rapture. So if you say that verse is not about the rapture, then I will agree that it is not about the rapture, because there is no such thing as a rapture anywhere in the bible.
You dont believe in the word "rapture"? Or iyong mismong idea ng rapture - re kukunin ang nanampalataya bago ang tribulation.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 08, 2015 at 04:02 PM
Those who are innocent or with pure heart tulad ng mga sanggol at mga walang muwang na bata
Akala ko by default, impyerno ang punta?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 04:19 PM
Yes, pre-trib, before Jesus descend for battle in armageddon.
I will ask again, eto ba yung related sa verse below:
1 Thessalonians 4:16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 08, 2015 at 04:31 PM
Akala ko by default, impyerno ang punta?
By default human will go to hell because of their sins. Tell me anong kasalanan ng isang sanggol?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 08, 2015 at 04:42 PM
I will ask again, eto ba yung related sa verse below:
1 Thessalonians 4:16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
If that is the event before tribulation (7 years of peace and tribulation), yes.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 04:50 PM
By default human will go to hell because of their sins. Tell me anong kasalanan ng isang sanggol?
pag sinabe ng mommy, tumahan ka, sunod kaagad ba yung sanggol o patuloy na iiyak?
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 05:19 PM
You dont believe in the word "rapture"? Or iyong mismong idea ng rapture - re kukunin ang nanampalataya bago ang tribulation.
Yung idea or concept mismo ang sinasabi ko, kapatid.
Walang secret rapture, wala ring rapture. I assure you, it took me years to develop my view on this.
Hindi na tayo magkakasundo sa issue na yan sir. Pero ok na rin, kasi marami naman tayong ibang issues na pinagkakasunduan.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 05:24 PM
If that is the event before tribulation (7 years of peace and tribulation), yes.
kung iyan yan, medyo malayu yung timing.
Daniel 12:1At sa panahong yaon ay tatayo si Miguel, na dakilang prinsipe na tumatayo sa ikabubuti ng mga anak ng iyong bayan; at magkakaroon ng panahon ng kabagabagan, na hindi nangyari kailan man mula nang magkaroon ng bansa hanggang sa panahong yaon: at sa panahong yaon ay maliligtas ang iyong bayan, bawa't isa na masusumpungan na nakasulat sa aklat. 2At marami sa kanila na nangatutulog sa alabok ng lupa ay mangagigising, ang iba'y sa walang hanggang buhay, at ang iba'y sa kahihiyan at sa walang hanggang pagkapahamak.
Pansinin mo yung verse 1 at verse 2.
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 05:45 PM
sa pagdating ng Panginoong Jesus, ihihiwalay lang naman yung mananampalataya at inde manamnampalataya.
The way I understand it, you believe in the rapture, but not the secret rapture.
Tama ba sir? You believe the elect will be raptured when Christ returns? A post-tribulation rapture?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 06:31 PM
The way I understand it, you believe in the rapture, but not the secret rapture.
Tama ba sir? You believe the elect will be raptured when Christ returns? A post-tribulation rapture?
eto lang yung eschatology ko sir, si Cristo ay babalik kahit na anong in between events na mangyari.
John 14:1“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in Goda ; believe also in me.2My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.4You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Matthew 28:18At lumapit si Jesus sa kanila at sila'y kaniyang kinausap, na sinasabi, Ang lahat ng kapamahalaan sa langit at sa ibabaw ng lupa ay naibigay na sa akin. 19Dahil dito magsiyaon nga kayo, at gawin ninyong mga alagad ang lahat ng mga bansa, na sila'y inyong bautismuhan sa pangalan ng Ama at ng Anak at ng Espiritu Santo: 20Na ituro ninyo sa kanila na kanilang ganapin ang lahat ng mga bagay na iniutos ko sa inyo: at narito, ako'y sumasa inyong palagi, hanggang sa katapusan ng sanglibutan.
Sabi sa Mat 28:20, hanggang sa katapusan ng sanglibutan sasamahan tayo ng Panginoong Jesus.
Continuous din yung atas (so called "Great Commision") hanggang sa katapusan ng sanglibutan.
Matt 13:The Parable of the Weeds
24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them.30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”
The Parable of the Weeds Explained
36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one,39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.42They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
sa Parable of the weeds mas kapansinpansin na inuna yung WEEDS bago yung WHEAT:
First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 07:08 PM
Kung babalik si Kristo para ihiwalay lang ang mga tao, hindi rapture yon.
Ang rapture, some will go directly from earth to heaven. They will be suddenly snatched up.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 07:13 PM
Hindi pa rin malinaw sa akin sir.
Kung babalik si Kristo para ihiwalay lang ang mga tao, hindi rapture yon.
Ang rapture, some will go directly from earth to heaven. They will be suddenly snatched up.
wala akong makitang matibay batayan nito:
Ang rapture, some will go directly from earth to heaven. They will be suddenly snatched up.
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 07:20 PM
Pag walang elements of suddenly snatching some people up directly to heaven while leaving other people on earth, hindi rapture yon.
So, pareho tayo ng belief? Walang rapture, whether post, mid or pre tribulation rapture?
=======================================
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Left_Behind_film_poster.jpg/220px-Left_Behind_film_poster.jpg)
Left Behind (2014)
YouTube trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrXe8YDbzYs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrXe8YDbzYs)
Post by: pTrader on Oct 08, 2015 at 07:40 PM
Ang rapture, some will go directly from earth to heaven by being suddenly snatched up. The others will be left behind on earth.kung ganyan yung rapture, wala talaga.
Pag walang elements of suddenly snatching some people up directly to heaven while leaving other people on earth, hindi rapture yon.
So, pareho tayo ng belief? Walang rapture, whether post, mid or pre tribulation rapture?
=======================================
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Left_Behind_film_poster.jpg/220px-Left_Behind_film_poster.jpg)
Left Behind (2014)
YouTube trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrXe8YDbzYs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrXe8YDbzYs)
Ipost ko uli ito galing sa Matthew:
Matt 13:The Parable of the Weeds
24Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’
28“ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them.30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”
The Parable of the Weeds Explained
36Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.38The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one,39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.42They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
wala pong left behind diyan, lahat ng wheat sama sama, wala ring inwanan at yung timing ng pag-gather end of the age.
The harvest is the end of the age
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 07:44 PM
That's another point where we agree.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. (Heb. 11:39-40)
None of them received the promise, because they will be made perfect "only together with us."
Kailangan sabay-sabay tayo. Hindi puwedeng may grupong nauna. Hindi puwedeng may na-rapture at nauna sa langit.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 08, 2015 at 08:16 PM
By default human will go to hell because of their sins. Tell me anong kasalanan ng isang sanggol?
Ang intindi ko kasi sa sinabi mo noon, we'll go to hell by default because we are sinners. Pamana ni Adan.
Post by: 48check on Oct 08, 2015 at 09:00 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i08oZmUXZ4
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 09:57 PM
I've heard it all before. It's the arrogance of the new atheists.
Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris.
To them, there's only one reason why people believe in God --- because they're all too stupid to realize that there is no God. To them, the atheists are the intellectuals; the religious are the dumbasses.
How about American Atheists spokesman David Silverman, who said on atheistnexus.org: "Religion is my bitch." He also tweeted, "Yes it is a myth. Deal with it. All delusions are myths."
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 08, 2015 at 11:30 PM
I've heard it all before. It's the arrogance of the new atheists.
Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris.
To them, there's only one reason why people believe in God --- because they're all to stupid to realize that there is no God. To them, the atheists are the intellectuals; the religious are the dumbasses.
How about American Atheists spokesman David Silverman, who said on atheistnexus.org: "Religion is my bitch." He also tweeted, "Yes it is a myth. Deal with it. All delusions are myths."
Yes. Ang dami na niyan nagkalat sa youtube. Madami din sagot diyan ang mga theists. Si Richard Dawkins ata yun puro insults na lang ang sinasabi.
Post by: barrister on Oct 08, 2015 at 11:46 PM
In his book The End of Faith, Harris wrote --- "Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."
(http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/Aslan_Greenwald_copy.jpg)
Sam Harris: genocidal maniac or suicidal logician?
Monday, October 13, 2014
... What a load of utter codswollop. Sam Harris clearly and openly and unmistakably wrote that it MAY be ethical to kill people for believing dangerous beliefs. Not for doing anything, not for harming anyone, but for simply BELIEVING CERTAIN BELIEFS. His repeated "clarifications" and obfuscations don't change that established fact and he has never recanted his statement. Nor, I note, has he ever come right out and declared specifically WHAT beliefs are so dangerous that it is ethical to kill people for nothing more than holding them.
There is absolutely no reference to ACTION, only to BELIEF, in his statement. Don't forget, his entire thesis in THE END OF FAITH is the intrinsic danger that stems from the mere possession of faith. Harris can't complain about "selective quoting", as the entire context actually makes it worse. He wrote: "Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense."
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/10/sam-harris-is-still-genocidal-maniac.html (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/10/sam-harris-is-still-genocidal-maniac.html)
Post by: dpogs on Oct 09, 2015 at 12:14 AM
1) At the rapture, believers meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). At the second coming, believers return with the Lord to the earth (Revelation 19:14).
2) The second coming occurs after the great and terrible tribulation (Revelation chapters 6–19). The rapture occurs before the tribulation (1 Thessalonians 5:9; Revelation 3:10).
3) The rapture is the removal of believers from the earth as an act of deliverance (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, 5:9). The second coming includes the removal of unbelievers as an act of judgment (Matthew 24:40-41).
4) The rapture will be secret and instant (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). The second coming will be visible to all (Revelation 1:7; Matthew 24:29-30).
5) The second coming of Christ will not occur until after certain other end-times events take place (2 Thessalonians 2:4; Matthew 24:15-30; Revelation chapters 6–18). The rapture is imminent; it could take place at any moment (Titus 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15:50-54).
<copied>
Post by: pTrader on Oct 09, 2015 at 11:21 AM
The important differences between the rapture and second coming are as follows:
1) At the rapture, believers meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). At the second coming, believers return with the Lord to the earth (Revelation 19:14).
<copied>
1 Thess 4:16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage one another with these words.
1) At the rapture, believers meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17).
This verse said " 4:16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven" at saan siya pupunta "17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."
Ang tanong saan located yung clouds and air na sinasabe? Kung inde earth ito inde pa nga bumalik. Pero lumalabas na yung location ng clouds and air ay earth .
Sumakatuwind yung 1 Thes 4:17 ay second coming na.
(ediitted for clarity)
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 02:27 PM
The important differences between the rapture and second coming are as follows:
The most important difference is this:
It is true that there will be a second coming. It is not true that there is such a thing as a rapture.
=================================
1) At the rapture, believers meet the Lord in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). ...
You cited 1 Thes. 4:17:
15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thes. 4:15-17)
When Christ comes down from heaven to earth, those alive and those resurrected will meet Him in the air, then those alive and resurrected go back down to earth with Christ, whose purpose is His second coming on earth. They do not go to heaven, with Christ doing a U-Turn back to heaven.
Those alive in Christ and those resurrected in Christ are changed to immortality. That's why they have the ability to rise in the air as high as the clouds --- because their bodies are no longer mortal.
Why do they meet the Lord in the air and then all of them go down to earth? Because they (the saved) are the reception group for the arriving foreign dignitary (Christ).
Note that in the verses, only one has a journey, it's Christ who comes down from heaven. Yung mga tao, walang journey --- sumusundo lang sila sa isang nag-journey. Similar to the Queen of England who visits the Philippines --- PNoy goes to the airport, receives the Queen, and both of them go to Malacanang.
If your OFW friend from Saudi returns to Manila to visit your home, you go to the airport to meet him, and both of you go to your home in Manila. You don't go to the airport to meet him so that both of you can fly back to Saudi.
Si Pacquiao lang nga, pag umuwi sa Pilipinas, ang daming sumasalubong sa airport. Si Kristo pa kaya ang hindi natin salubungin sa hangin.
==================================
2)... The rapture occurs before the tribulation (1 Thessalonians 5:9; Revelation 3:10).
You cited 1 Thes. 5:9 and Rev. 3:10:
1 Thes. 5:9 is not a rapture: 9 For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.
It means God did not appoint us to suffer wrath in hellfire. It does not mean we will be snatched to save us from the Great Tribulation.
Rev. 3:10 is not a rapture: 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.
Rev. 3:10 means the elect will be protected during the Great Tribulation; it does not mean they will be snatched to heaven to escape it. The elect will remain on earth; they will not be raptured to heaven.
===================================
3) The rapture is the removal of believers from the earth as an act of deliverance (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, 5:9). The second coming includes the removal of unbelievers as an act of judgment (Matthew 24:40-41).
As already explained above, there is no rapture in 1 Thes. 4:13-17 or 5:9.
You also cited Mat. 24:40-41:
Mat 24:40-41 is not a rapture: 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
The parallel verse in Luke explains:
34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” [36] [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17#fen-NIV-25688e)]
37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.
He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” (Luke 17:34-37)
One will be taken and the other one left.
Where will they be taken? To heaven? No.
Those who will be taken will not be raptured to heaven, they will simply die physically.
Verse 37 --- They asked: Where will their dead bodies be taken? Jesus answered: They end up with the vultures. Look for the places where vultures gather and you'll see the places where their dead bodies were gathered and dumped.
==================================
4) The rapture will be secret and instant (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). ...
1 Cor. 15:50-54 is not a secret event:
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
There will be seven seals. There will be seven trumpets. At the seventh and last trumpet, the dead in Christ will resurrect into immortality, and the bodies of those in Christ who are still alive will be changed from mortal to immortal bodies.
There is no secret rapture in those verses. How can an event previously signified by seven seals and previously announced by seven trumpets be a secret event?
There is no instant rapture in those verses. What is instantaneous is the change of the bodies of the saved from mortal to immortal. The verses say nothing about also being instantly snatched from earth to heaven.
=================================
5) The second coming of Christ will not occur until after certain other end-times events take place (2 Thessalonians 2:4; Matthew 24:15-30; Revelation chapters 6–18). The rapture is imminent; it could take place at any moment (Titus 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15:50-54).
The second coming will occur only after other end time events take place, that's true. But a rapture is not among those end-time events, because there is no such thing as a rapture.
For the rapture, you cited Titus 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; and 1 Corinthians 15:50-54.
- Titus 2:13 - No rapture there. It's about waiting for Christ's return, but no rapture.
- 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 - No rapture there. As explained above, the elect meet Christ in the air and they all go down to earth.
That's why it's called the second coming, because Christ returns to earth. If the elect were going to heaven, then Christ should have simply waited for them in heaven, instead of performing the undignified task of coming down in the clouds to escort the elect to heaven.
In the first coming, Christ came in humility. But in the second coming, He comes in full power and glory of a Mighty God, not a lowly escort who has to fetch humans and shuttle them to heaven.
- 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 - No rapture there. It's about being instantly changed from mortal to immortal, nothing about being instantly snatched from earth to heaven while you are alive.
Post by: majoe on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:38 PM
e kung ganun, di rin pala nila makakasama si Kristo kasi maghahari pa si Christ sa lupa for a thousand years samantalang sila nasa heaven na.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:42 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:49 PM
yan pala ang rapture sa kanila. aakyat na agad sa langit? akala ko dati susundo lang sa pagbabalik ni Kristo tapos makikipaglaban na sa pwersa ng kasamaan (battle of armageddon).
e kung ganun, di rin pala nila makakasama si Kristo kasi maghahari pa si Christ sa lupa for a thousand years samantalang sila nasa heaven na.
Kanya-kanyang interpretation yan sir. Kaya nga may bibliya, para masuri mo kung sino ang tama.
Nakita mo na yung iba-ibang sides sa issue, bahala ka nang mag-isip.
10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. (Acts 17:10-12)
Nakita mo ang ugali ng mga Berean Jews. Nakausap na nga si Apostol Pablo, pero hindi pa nasiyahan, binasa pa rin ang kasulatan para malaman kung tama ba si Pablo o mali.
They were "of more noble character" than the Thessalonicans. Why? Because they examined the scriptures daily before they believed.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:52 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:53 PM
yan pala ang rapture sa kanila. aakyat na agad sa langit? akala ko dati susundo lang sa pagbabalik ni Kristo tapos makikipaglaban na sa pwersa ng kasamaan (battle of armageddon).
e kung ganun, di rin pala nila makakasama si Kristo kasi maghahari pa si Christ sa lupa for a thousand years samantalang sila nasa heaven na.
Yup kasama sila sa second coming but will not fight. Jesus alone will destroy His enemies. Those who have beeb raptured they will be rulers during 1000 years reign of Jesus..
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:54 PM
Yup kasama sila sa second coming but will not fight. Jesus alone will destroy His enemies. Those who have beeb raptured they will be rulers during 1000 years reign of Jesus..
Rule over who?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:55 PM
Question. Anong klase ba yang Battle of Armageddon na yan? Tulad ba yan ng battle na napapanood natin sa pelikula na epic? Is it really necessary knowing God is all powerful?
For Israel to believe once again.
Post by: majoe on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:56 PM
Yup. That i what i am talking about. My body will become incoruptible and will met Jesus on the air... That is whay i am waiting for, and it will happen anytime, no one knows when. Maybe later or tomorrow. That is why everyone needs to be preapred at all times.
may mga signs naman pag malapit na bumalik si Christ.
estimate ko year 2029 - 2240 ang balik Nya ;)
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 09, 2015 at 03:57 PM
For Israel to believe once again.
Israel needs to witness an actual battle before they can believe?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 09, 2015 at 04:01 PM
Israel needs to witness an actual battle before they can believe?
They shout crucify Him, crucify Him when He came on this earth as a simple carpenter man.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 09, 2015 at 04:06 PM
They shout crucify Him, crucify Him when He came on this earth as a simple carpenter man.
That's like saying Israel never matured as a people. So the battle is for Israel only?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 09, 2015 at 04:16 PM
Yup kasama sila sa second coming but will not fight. Jesus alone will destroy His enemies. Those who have beeb raptured they will be rulers during 1000 years reign of Jesus..
how can you relate the rapture to the 1000 years?
Post by: majoe on Oct 09, 2015 at 05:07 PM
Yup kasama sila sa second coming but will not fight. Jesus alone will destroy His enemies. Those who have beeb raptured they will be rulers during 1000 years reign of Jesus..
alone? e kasama Nya nga mga angels.
so saan kayo nilagak kung di kayo kasama?
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 05:39 PM
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. (Rev. 19:11-14)
Kasama Niya, armies of heaven. Hindi lang isang army, plural na armies pa raw.
===================================
Sino raw ang kasama?
His called. His chosen and faithful followers. They are God's people --- the called, the chosen, those who follow His commands.
14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers. (Rev. 17:14)
They are white and clean --- they did not defile themselves with false gods. They are also faithful followers.
No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. (Rev. 14:3-4)
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Rev. 19:7-8)
Note the bright white clothes again. They are the Lamb's bride --- the members of the true Church --- in white, clean bridal clothes:
I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. (2 Cor. 11:2)
=================================
Armies of heaven ang kasama. Maraming armies yon, hindi lang angels. Lalo namang hindi puwedeng mag-isa lang si Kristo na lalaban sa Armageddon.
Post by: majoe on Oct 09, 2015 at 05:56 PM
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 06:13 PM
Ganito ang meaning --- Hindi pa nag-uumpisa ang laban, tiniyak na ang pagkatalo ng mga kalaban.
Tinawag na ang mga vultures, para kainin ang katawan ng mga patay sa matatalong grupo, whether king, general or slave.
Birds eating the dead flesh of a warrior is the ultimate insult, which would be worse than just losing the battle. So, birds will eat their dead flesh, whether king, general or slave, since they are all equally worthless to God, regardless of their high status or low status in life.
Post by: majoe on Oct 09, 2015 at 06:31 PM
May ibon din, pero hindi kasama sa armies of heaven yon.
Ganito ang meaning --- Hindi pa nag-uumpisa ang laban, tiniyak na ang pagkatalo ng mga kalaban.
Tinawag na ang mga vultures, para kainin ang katawan ng mga patay sa matatalong grupo, whether king, general or slave.
Birds eating the dead flesh of a warrior is the ultimate insult, which would be worse than just losing the battle. So, birds will eat their dead flesh, whether king, general or slave, since they are all equally worthless to God, regardless of their high status or low status in life.
agree. para di din mabaho ang mundo pag nanahan na sila. (makakasama ba tayo dun? hehe )
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 09, 2015 at 06:45 PM
at kasama din ang mga lumilipad sa himpapawid :)
17And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
Horses and riders? Are we sure this hasn't happened yet? Where are the big guns, battleships and icbms?
Post by: JT on Oct 09, 2015 at 06:52 PM
Thanks brader.
That's another point where we agree.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. (Heb. 11:39-40)
None of them received the promise, because they will be made perfect "only together with us."
Kailangan sabay-sabay tayo. Hindi puwedeng may grupong nauna. Hindi puwedeng may na-rapture at nauna sa langit.
If indeed sabay-sabay. In the book of Revelation, could you explain who are the 24 elders? the two witnesses, and the multitudes in Rev 7:9?
These are all prior to the Great White Throne where the final judgement occurs.
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 06:54 PM
If indeed sabay-sabay. In the book of Revelation, could you explain who are the 24 elders? the two witnesses, and the multitudes in Rev 7:9?
These are all prior to the Great White Throne where the final judgement occurs.
They are not human.
Ang sabi ko, sabay-sabay tayo. Meaning, tayong mga tao. Hindi kasama yung hindi tao.
The elders and four living creatures are not human.
The 144,000 and the multitudes are human, but they are not in heaven yet.
Post by: JT on Oct 09, 2015 at 06:57 PM
They are not human.
Ang sabi ko, sabay-sabay tayo. Meaning, tayong mga tao. Hindi kasama yung hindi tao.
Not humans??? Are you sure about that interpretation of yours? Could you support any verse pls.
Rev 7:9 clearly these are humans.
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:05 PM
In heaven now are the elders and the four living creatures. They are not human.
Not yet in heaven are the 144,000 and the multitudes. But they are human.
Post by: JT on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:06 PM
No, not all of them are humans.
In heaven now are the elders and the four living creatures. They are not human.
Not yet in heaven are the 144,000 and the multitudes. But they are human.
So some of them are? Still, san galing yun?
Actually, the elders seems to be humans also kasi may crown. Checking from the bible, no angels or other heavenly beings except God, Jesus and the saints are having crown.
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:20 PM
So some of them are? Still, san galing yun?
Actually, the elders seems to be humans also kasi may crown. Checking from the bible, no angels or other heavenly beings except God, Jesus and the saints are having crown.
The beast has ten crowns.
Does the bible also say that only humans can have crowns?
I need clarification first. I believe there are no humans in heaven yet. Do you believe there are humans in heaven now?
I think that's the basic difference in our beliefs on this issue.
Post by: JT on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:24 PM
The beast has ten crowns.
Does the bible also say that only humans can have crowns?
So are you saying yung The Beast will also be in heaven? Nandun din sya before the throne and before the Lamb?
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:26 PM
If the beast has crowns and the beast is not human, then it is not true that only humans can have crowns.
That's the simple logic of my statement.
Post by: JT on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:26 PM
I need clarification first. I believe there are no humans in heaven yet. Do you believe there are humans in heaven now?
I think that's the basic difference in our beliefs on this issue.
So if there are no humans in heaven yet, when do you think the humans will be there?
Post by: JT on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:27 PM
No, I was only following your argument that the elders must be human, because only humans can have crowns.
If the beast has crowns and the beast is not human, then it is not true that only humans can have crowns.
That's the simle logic of my statement.
Yah but we are talking about heavenly realms here. But yes, The Beast has crowns also which most likely a symbolism (as the beast are) and not as actual crown.
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:30 PM
So if there are no humans in heaven yet, when do you think the humans will be there?
I want to reconcile our differences, but you seem to prefer an argument.
If you don't want to answer my question, then just say so, and that's ok with me.
Don't ask another question and prolong a useless discussion.
Post by: JT on Oct 09, 2015 at 07:36 PM
I want to reconcile our differences, but you seem to prefer an argument.
If you don't want to answer my question, then just say so, and that's ok with me.
Don't ask another question and prolong a useless discussion.
Well I'm sorry if naging argumentative ang approach ko but its definitely not useless discussion.
You said sabay sabay which I assume you are referring to the Great White Throne judgement. But there are verses in the bible referring to multitude appearing before the Throne and before the Lamb and this is before the Final Judgement.
So how do you reconcile that with your doctrine?
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 08:35 PM
I need clarification first. I believe there are no humans in heaven yet. Do you believe there are humans in heaven now?
I think that's the basic difference in our beliefs on this issue.
Post by: panzimus on Oct 09, 2015 at 09:36 PM
As already explained above, there is no rapture in 1 Thes. 4:13-17 or 5:9.
You also cited Mat. 24:40-41:
Mat 24:40-41 is not a rapture: 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
The parallel verse in Luke explains:
34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” [36] [e (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17#fen-NIV-25688e)]
37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.
He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” (Luke 17:34-37)
One will be taken and the other one left.
Where will they be taken? To heaven? No.
Those who will be taken will not be raptured to heaven, they will simply die physically.
Verse 37 --- They asked: Where will their dead bodies be taken? Jesus answered: They end up with the vultures. Look for the places where vultures gather and you'll see the places where their dead bodies were gathered and dumped.
Sir, i want to know bakit mamamatay physically yung mga yun? I mean for what purpose or reason?
Post by: barrister on Oct 09, 2015 at 09:56 PM
Maraming mamamatay, kasi panahon na ng abomination of desolation, of great distress, which is one of the signs that Christ is about to return.
Ang dapat, alam natin ang timeline of events sa Revelation. Pag hindi, mahirap talagang intindihin yan.
Tignan mo ang topic sa Matthew 24 --- the signs of Christ's return and of the end of the age:
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Mt. 24:3)
In those times, there will be great distress:
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. (Mt. 24:15-21)
The distress will be unequalled from the beginning of the world and never to be equalled again. Meaning, the distress will be worse than the time of Noah, worse than the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD, worse than World War I or II.
Look at the first four seals, corresponding to the four horsemen: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+6)
1. White Horse - Conqueror;
2. Red Horse - War (a result of the conqueror's actions);
3. Black Horse - Famine (a result of war);
4. Pale Horse - Death (a result of war and famine), with the pale horse given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.
With that kind of a situation, with wars, famine, plagues, and wild beasts of the earth, with great distress that will be worse than anything ever experienced in human history, then of course many will die.
Post by: panzimus on Oct 09, 2015 at 10:43 PM
Maraming salamat brader! bago na namang karunungan from you.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 09, 2015 at 11:47 PM
There are two judgement, bema and great white tjrone judgement. Bema is for the believers, prize will be given according to believers work. If no work done, no prize but still will have eternal life.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 12, 2015 at 10:19 AM
Yup kasama sila sa second coming but will not fight. Jesus alone will destroy His enemies. Those who have beeb raptured they will be rulers during 1000 years reign of Jesus..
Rev 20 NIV
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. Theya had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
Is this 1000 years literal or just a period of time?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 12, 2015 at 11:47 AM
Rev 20 NIV
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. Theya had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
Is this 1000 years literal or just a period of time?
I believe in 6-day creation. I believe in 7 year tribulation. I believe in 1000 reign of Jesus Christ.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 12, 2015 at 12:15 PM
I believe in 6-day creation. I believe in 7 year tribulation. I believe in 1000 reign of Jesus Christ.
What has to be considered the first resurrection?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 12, 2015 at 01:11 PM
First resurrection simply means "resurrection to eternal life". There are some "first resurrection" that was recoreded in the Bible and some will yet to come
First resurrection that already happened:
1. Resurrection of Jesus Christ
2. Resurrection of Jerusalem saints
3. We 'may' include Lazarus' resurrection
First resurrection that will yet to come
1. Resurrection of the great church before tribulation
2. Resurrection after tribulation of those who died martyr/beheaded during tribulation.
Second resurrection is what we called "resurrection to eternal damnation" or "second death" and this will happen only once after 1000 year reign of Jesus in preparation for great white throne judgement. Unbelievers who died from all ages will be resurrected for eternal damnation.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 12, 2015 at 01:27 PM
Daniel 12:2 KJV "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
First resurrection simply means "resurrection to eternal life". There are some "first resurrection" that was recoreded in the Bible and some will yet to come
First resurrection that already happened:
1. Resurrection of Jesus Christ
2. Resurrection of Jerusalem saints
3. We 'may' include Lazarus' resurrection
First resurrection that will yet to come
1. Resurrection of the great church before tribulation
2. Resurrection after tribulation of those who died martyr/beheaded during tribulation.
Second resurrection is what we called "resurrection to eternal damnation" or "second death" and this will happen only once after 1000 year reign of Jesus in preparation for great white throne judgement. Unbelievers who died from all ages will be resurrected for eternal damnation.
would it be that this is the first ressurection, since the verse in Rev 20 said first ressurection:
First resurrection that already happened:
1. Resurrection of Jesus Christ
2. Resurrection of Jerusalem saints
Mat 27 NIV
51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection ande went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
And they are with Christ right now.
Rev 20 NIV
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Post by: majoe on Oct 12, 2015 at 06:57 PM
Horses and riders? Are we sure this hasn't happened yet? Where are the big guns, battleships and icbms?
hindi kasi literal ang pagkakasulat sa revelation kaya ganyan :)
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 12, 2015 at 07:17 PM
hindi kasi literal ang pagkakasulat sa revelation kaya ganyan :)
E yung beast literal? How about the 144000? The dragon? Woman clothed in the sun? The trumpets? The seals? Which ones are literal and which ones aren't?
Post by: DVD_Freak on Oct 12, 2015 at 07:29 PM
E yung beast literal? How about the 144000? The dragon? Woman clothed in the sun? The trumpets? The seals? Which ones are literal and which ones aren't?
Why don't you enlighten us with your own interpretation instead of continuous shallow questions? ;D
Post by: majoe on Oct 12, 2015 at 07:34 PM
E yung beast literal? How about the 144000? The dragon? Woman clothed in the sun? The trumpets? The seals? Which ones are literal and which ones aren't?
syempre symbolic ang beast, dragon, at woman clothed in sun.
144,000 ay literal. sila ang 12,000 people from each tribes (12 tribes) of Israel.
trumpet and seals literal pero heavenly matters yata ito.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 12, 2015 at 11:01 PM
syempre symbolic ang beast, dragon, at woman clothed in sun.
144,000 ay literal. sila ang 12,000 people from each tribes (12 tribes) of Israel.
trumpet and seals literal pero heavenly matters yata ito.
What I'm trying to say is how do we tell the literal from the symbolic?
Post by: JT on Oct 13, 2015 at 04:57 AM
Answer this first, because your answer will help me find the proper approach:
Apologies for late reply. Yes, I do believe there are already humans there now.
Even before the Great White Throne Judgement comes where God will gather all. Revelation 7:9 says "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, PEOPLES, and tongues, standing BEFORE THE THRONE and BEFORE THE LAMB, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,"
Consider the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. There is an immediate destination after death and there is consciousness of their situations. For the righteous, it is in Abraham's Bosom, and the wicked at the Hades. But this is prior to Jesus redemptive work. When Jesus was in the cross, He promised one of the thief "“Assuredly, I say to you, TODAY you will be with Me in PARADISE.” Didn't say, today i put you to sleep or you wait.
Surely God has reserved a place for the dead. Grave for the body, either paradise(probably some place in heaven) for the righteous or hades(gates of hell) for the wicked. But this is not the resurrection of the dead yet. When a true and faithful believers of Jesus Christ die, the spirit and soul is alive and is taken up. For non believers, the spirit(which is from God) is dead(due to Adam & Eve's sin) but the soul(it is eternal) is alive that is taken down to Hades.
The soul and body will only then be reunited in the resurrection.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 13, 2015 at 05:13 AM
Post by: barrister on Oct 13, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Apologies for late reply. Yes, I do believe there are already humans there now.
In that case, we will not be able to agree.
I believe there are no humans in heaven yet. Without this fundamental principle, I will not be able to continue my discussion.
Since you said you believe there are humans in heaven now, then that's the end of it.
Post by: jerix on Oct 13, 2015 at 12:00 PM
Post by: barrister on Oct 13, 2015 at 02:04 PM
=====================================
In the bible, there are three heavens. The bible does not mention a first or second heaven word-for-word, but it does mention a third heaven word-for-word. If there is a third heaven, then logically, there must be a first and second heaven.
The first heaven is a physical location in the earth's atmosphere:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Gen. 7:11)
It means water from below and above - from the depths of the earth and from the atmosphere - came and brought the great flood. (Contrary to popular belief, the flood was not composed of rain alone.)
The second heaven is the physical area beyond the earth's atmosphere:
13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. (Exo. 32:13)
This heaven refers to the place where stars are located, which is the universe outside the earth's atmosphere. Rainwater comes from the atmosphere (1st heaven); stars are found in outer space (2nd heaven).
The third heaven is the spiritual dwelling place of God:
I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. (2 Cor. 12:1-2)
This is a vision given to Paul where he was taken to the third heaven 14 years before he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He was not taken to heaven, but was merely shown a vision.
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. (Ps. 2:4)
The third heaven is the spiritual pace where God is enthroned.
======================================
The term "seventh heaven" is a popular expression, although it is not biblical.
This belief, found in various religions such as Hinduism and Sumerian, refers not to seven heavens, but the different divisions in one heaven.
In the Catholic faith, it is a popular belief that heaven is divided into seven levels of beatitude. The highest level is the seventh. However, this belief is not part of official Catholic doctrine.
Post by: majoe on Oct 13, 2015 at 04:17 PM
There are many concepts of heaven, depending on the religious doctrine. The common concept is that heaven is the place where God is. It cannot be pinpointed GPS style, because it is a spiritual place, not a physical place.
=====================================
In the bible, there are three heavens. The bible does not mention a first or second heaven word-for-word, but it does mention a third heaven word-for-word. If there is a third heaven, then logically, there must be a first and second heaven.
The first heaven is a physical location in the earth's atmosphere:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Gen. 7:11)
It means water from below and above - from the depths of the earth and from the atmosphere - came and brought the great flood. (Contrary to popular belief, the flood was not composed of rain alone.)
The second heaven is the physical area beyond the earth's atmosphere:
13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. (Exo. 32:13)
This heaven refers to the place where stars are located, which is the universe outside the earth's atmosphere. Rainwater comes from the atmosphere (1st heaven); stars are found in outer space (2nd heaven).
The third heaven is the spiritual dwelling place of God:
I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. (2 Cor. 12:1-2)
This is a vision given to Paul where he was taken to the third heaven 14 years before he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. He was not taken to heaven, but was merely shown a vision.
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. (Ps. 2:4)
The third heaven is the spiritual pace where God is enthroned.
======================================
The term "seventh heaven" is a popular expression, although it is not biblical.
This belief, found in various religions such as Hinduism and Sumerian, refers not to seven heavens, but the different divisions in one heaven.
In the Catholic faith, it is a popular belief that heaven is divided into seven levels of beatitude. The highest level is the seventh. However, this belief is not part of official Catholic doctrine.
atty, pano natin reconcile yan dito.
KJV
Proverbs 8
30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
John 14
2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
sabi ni brod Eli, dyan sa earth na yan nananahan ang Diyos.
Post by: majoe on Oct 13, 2015 at 04:21 PM
What I'm trying to say is how do we tell the literal from the symbolic?
pag binasa mo ng buo yung revelation, babanggitin naman dun kung ano yung mga symbolic dun.
Post by: barrister on Oct 13, 2015 at 06:52 PM
atty, pano natin reconcile yan dito.
Hindi yata kailangan ng reconciliation, kasi walang contradiction.
==================================
KJV
Proverbs 8
30Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
The Son was rejoicing because He was pleased with what was created; because what was created was good. The Son was not rejoicing while He was located in the habitable part of the earth.
The KJV does not have a good translation for those verses. So, here's the NIV rendition, and let's extend it to verses 22-31, so that the context becomes clear.
Notice that the topic is about creation --- (a) The Son was begotten before creation; and (b) The Son was present during and after creation.
First, Prov. 8:22-26 --- The Son is begotten before the creation of the world:
22 “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; 23 I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. 24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water; 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, 26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. (Prov. 8:22-26)
(Side note --- Notice that the Son was not created. He was begotten. The Father gave birth to the Son.)
Next, Prov. 8:27-31 --- The Son was present during the creation of the world, then after creation, the Son was constantly at the Father's side:
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. 30 Then I was constantly at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, 31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind. (Prov. 8:27-31)
The Son was present during creation. After creation, the Son was constantly at the Father's side. The Son was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing in the Father's presence.
Why was the Son rejoicing? Because He saw that the things created were good. He was pleased with what was created. It does not mean that God the Son was living on earth and was rejoicing while He was on earth.
Where was the Father? In the third heaven. No contradiction there.
Where was the Son after creation? Also in the third heaven, at the Father's side. Why was the Son not at the Father's side during creation? Because the Son was the one creating, under instructions from the Father.
==================================
John 14
2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
This is another problematic translation by the KJV. The word "mansions" is not accurate.
Here's the NIV rendition:
2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. (John 14:2-3)
The Father's house has many rooms. This is the Father's house, not heaven. The bible does not refer to heaven as the Father's house.
Jesus refers to the temple in Jerusalem as His Father's house:
"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" (Luke 2:49)
To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:16)
But that is not heaven, that is a temple, which is only a representation of the Holy City of Jerusalem from heaven. Built around the exterior wall of the temple in Jerusalem were many chambers for the priests. The priests used those chambers when they were counseling worshippers.
Therefore the "many mansions" in the KJV are the many chambers in the temple, which was a representation during those times of the Holy City that is to come. That is why the meaning of the chambers would have been clear to Jesus' audience; unfortunately, it is no longer clear to modern readers today.
The Holy City from heaven is mentioned in Revelation:
10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. (Rev. 21:10)
There will be no more chambers for the priests, because the City will not have a temple:
22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. (Rev. 21:22)
The many chambers in the New Jerusalem from heaven will now be symbolic chambers for the new priests. It means the "chambers" are now positions of authority for those new priests.
And who are the new priests? Those who will be given immortal bodies at the first resurrection, who will become rulers and priests who will reign with Christ for 1,000 years over the nations of the earth:
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth. (Rev. 5:10)
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:6)
Since the Father's house is not heaven, then there is again no contradiction.
This subject matter is too much for those with only a passing interest in the bible. Baka antukin yung ibang readers natin.
Ang problema kasi, masyadong mabigat yung mga verses na tinatanong mo sir... :(
==================================
sabi ni brod Eli, dyan sa earth na yan nananahan ang Diyos.
Ewan ko lang. Parang hindi ganon ang naaalala ko. Madalas kasi akong manood ng programa niya dati, noong nasa Philippines pa siya.
Ang sinasabi niya noon, ang Diyos ay nasa langit. Ang topic niya, tinututulan niya yung madalas sabihin ng iba na "God is everywhere" (omnipresence).
Wala akong naaalala na sinabi ni Brod Eli na ang Diyos ay nananahan sa New Jerusalem. Hindi puwedeng tahanan ng Ama yon, kasi ginawa iyon para ibaba mula sa langit papunta sa lupa. Hindi talaga para sa langit yon.
Siguro binasa lang ang ganitong talata:
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. (Rev. 21:2-3)
Ang sabi, God will dwell with them. Pero hindi pa rin God's dwelling place ang tabernacle. It only means the tabernacle will be with the people.
Tignan mo yung Old Testament. Ang sabi, by means of the tabernacle, God will dwell among them:
8 “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you. (Exod. 25:8-9)
Pero ang sabi rin, hindi pa rin daw doon ang dwelling ng Diyos.
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed ... Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? (Acts 7:44; 48, 49)
Hindi raw tumatahan ang Diyos sa gawa ng tao, samantalang gawa ng tao ang tabernacle/temple, at Siya mismo ang nagsabi na tatahan Siya doon.
E di kahit sabihin na dwelling Niya ang tabernacle/temple, representation lang yon, at nasa heaven pa rin talaga ang dwelling Niya.
Post by: JT on Oct 14, 2015 at 08:34 AM
In that case, we will not be able to agree.
I believe there are no humans in heaven yet. Without this fundamental principle, I will not be able to continue my discussion.
Since you said you believe there are humans in heaven now, then that's the end of it.
Awww, it's ok. You have the right to remain silent naman eh. If you can't think no more of it, then I'll just agree to disagree.
Thanks Atty.
Post by: tony on Oct 14, 2015 at 11:22 AM
Post by: sirhc on Oct 14, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Is God really loving the poor? why did he make billions of them?
I think it maybe unfair to tag the current plight of the poor billions on God. Capitalism, Imperialism, Colonialism and a bunch of other isms. All stems from the greed and evils of men.
Post by: barrister on Oct 14, 2015 at 11:50 AM
It is not true that God made billions of poor people. Man did it to himself by eating the fruit.
The original quote is popularly attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "God must have loved the common people --- He made so many of them.'' However, there is no proof that Abe actually said it.
The quote later evolved for religious purposes by changing "the common people" to "the poor."
Post by: tony on Oct 14, 2015 at 12:36 PM
Post by: pTrader on Oct 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM
well, rich people are not common either...
Both are common. It is how you live with what you have.
Post by: barrister on Oct 14, 2015 at 01:36 PM
Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Mt. 5:3; Luke 6:20)
The key to understanding is the Greek word "ptōchoi." It literally means, "to crouch or cower like a beggar."
I posted a discussion on sir Nelson's thread:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.msg1983012.html#msg1983012 (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.msg1983012.html#msg1983012)
Mt. 5:3 and Luke 6:20 both used the word "ptōchoi," even if one said "poor in spirit" and the other simply said "poor."
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.msg1983553.html#msg1983553 (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,170692.msg1983553.html#msg1983553)
Just because you are materially poor, it does not mean you automatically have a free card to blessedness.
Post by: tony on Oct 14, 2015 at 01:49 PM
Quote
Just because you are materially poor, it does not mean you automatically have a free card to blessedness.
of course....
Post by: pTrader on Oct 14, 2015 at 02:08 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 14, 2015 at 02:34 PM
Post by: JT on Oct 14, 2015 at 04:10 PM
Is God really loving the poor? why did he make billions of them?
On the contrary, God never meant for man to be poor. That was the devil's schemes.
Abundance was part of Jesus' mission here on earth for us. John 10:10 says "The thief[Devil] does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I[Jesus] have come that they may have life [ETERNAL LIFE], and that they may have it more ABUNDANTLY[PROSPEROUS LIFE]".
And so this was part of the divine exchange Jesus has made in the cross for those who will believe. 2 Corinthians 8:9 says "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that YOU through HIS POVERTY might become RICH."
Although God loves everyone[clearly in John 3:16], He does not respond to needs[and desperation] as He requires and responds to faith. I personally believe people are poor because of no faith, or wrong faith or lack of it. Hebrews 11:6 says "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
The blessings and the favor from God depends as what Ephesians 3:20 says, "Now to Him who is ABLE to do EXCEEDINGLY ABUNDANTLY ABOVE ALL that we ASK or THINK, ACCORDING to the power that works in us, ..."
If so how come other nations or people are very rich even though unbelievers? Diligence and hardwork always pays off. Proverbs 14:23 says "In all labor there is profit, But idle chatter leads only to poverty."
So whats the difference between the prosperity from own work of hands and from the blessings & favor coming from God? Proverbs 10:22 says "The blessing of the Lord makes one rich, And He adds no sorrow with it."
Post by: barrister on Oct 14, 2015 at 05:34 PM
On the contrary, God never meant for man to be poor. That was the devil's schemes.
Abundance was part of Jesus' mission here on earth for us. John 10:10 says "The thief[Devil] does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I[Jesus] have come that they may have life [ETERNAL LIFE], and that they may have it more ABUNDANTLY[PROSPEROUS LIFE]".
And so this was part of the divine exchange Jesus has made in the cross for those who will believe. 2 Corinthians 8:9 says "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that YOU through HIS POVERTY might become RICH."
Although God loves everyone[clearly in John 3:16], He does not respond to needs[and desperation] as He requires and responds to faith. I personally believe people are poor because of no faith, or wrong faith or lack of it. Hebrews 11:6 says "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
The blessings and the favor from God depends as what Ephesians 3:20 says, "Now to Him who is ABLE to do EXCEEDINGLY ABUNDANTLY ABOVE ALL that we ASK or THINK, ACCORDING to the power that works in us, ..."
If so how come other nations or people are very rich even though unbelievers? Diligence and hardwork always pays off. Proverbs 14:23 says "In all labor there is profit, But idle chatter leads only to poverty."
So whats the difference between the prosperity from own work of hands and from the blessings & favor coming from God? Proverbs 10:22 says "The blessing of the Lord makes one rich, And He adds no sorrow with it."
The New Testament does not promise material abundance, it promises spiritual abundance.
In fact, Christ's followers were usually poor and suffering because the world hated them.
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18-20)
Yan ang dinala ng mga Amerikanong pastor sa Pilipinas --- The Prosperity Gospel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology)
Oral Roberts was probably the first to reap big-time financial success with this doctrine, which he used since the 1950s up to the time of his death. This doctrine has been making televangelists rich since the 1960s. Now, those preachers have gone international.
Prosperity Preachers and Financial Gain
By Josef Urban
“A Scriptural Examination of the Modern Doctrine of Financial Prosperity”
It is a very common thing within the church nowadays to hear a preacher making references to supposed promises in the Bible that promise believers to have financial and economic prosperity. Statements like, “God doesn’t want us to live in poverty” and “God promises to bless you economically if you honor Him” and so on, give the impression that Christians should believe for and seek material, financial, economic prosperity on this earth. Frequently the impression is given which ultimately makes people think, “God wants me to have more money”.
http://www.puregospeltruth.com/prosperity-preachers-and-financial-gain---does-god-want-you-to-be-rich.html (http://www.puregospeltruth.com/prosperity-preachers-and-financial-gain---does-god-want-you-to-be-rich.html)
Post by: sirhc on Oct 14, 2015 at 05:53 PM
What about what the Old Testament says about material blessinga atty?
Post by: barrister on Oct 14, 2015 at 06:00 PM
3 You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country.
4 The fruit of your womb will be blessed, and the crops of your land and the young of your livestock—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
5 Your basket and your kneading trough will be blessed.
6 You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out.
7 The Lord will grant that the enemies who rise up against you will be defeated before you. They will come at you from one direction but flee from you in seven.
8 The Lord will send a blessing on your barns and on everything you put your hand to. The Lord your God will bless you in the land he is giving you.
9 The Lord will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the Lord your God and walk in obedience to him. 10 Then all the peoples on earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord, and they will fear you. 11 The Lord will grant you abundant prosperity—in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your ground—in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you.
12 The Lord will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands. You will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. 13 The Lord will make you the head, not the tail. If you pay attention to the commands of the Lord your God that I give you this day and carefully follow them, you will always be at the top, never at the bottom. 14 Do not turn aside from any of the commands I give you today, to the right or to the left, following other gods and serving them. (Deut. 28:3-12)
The Jews were previously taught that material prosperity and abundance is a blessing from God. But during His time on earth, Jesus gave the people a shockingly revolutionary new teaching --- Blessed are the poor.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 14, 2015 at 06:11 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 14, 2015 at 06:25 PM
Nangyari lang na halos lahat ng follower ni Jesus ay mahirap kasi sabi mismo ni Jesus mas madali pang makapasok ang isang camelsa butas ng karayom kesa sa mayaman na makapasok sa langit.
Kaya ayun halos lahat ng follower ni Jesus ay mahirap.
Pero kung susuriin natin, hindi material na kalagyan ang tinutukoy ni Jesus, kungdi ang kalagayan g puso at espirito ng tao. Madalas ang mga mayyaman they feel that they dont need God because they have everything, samantalang ang mga mahijirap, laging bukas ang kanilang puso sa anumang pag-asa kaligtasan na ibibigay sa kanila.
Post by: JT on Oct 14, 2015 at 06:38 PM
The New Testament does not promise material abundance, it promises spiritual abundance.
In fact, Christ's followers were usually poor and suffering because the world hated them.
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18-20)
Yan ang dinala ng mga Amerikanong pastor sa Pilipinas --- The Prosperity Gospel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology)
Oral Roberts was probably the first to reap big-time financial success with this doctrine, which he used since the 1950s up to the time of his death. This doctrine has been making televangelists rich since the 1960s. Now, those preachers have gone international.
Prosperity Preachers and Financial Gain
By Josef Urban
“A Scriptural Examination of the Modern Doctrine of Financial Prosperity”
It is a very common thing within the church nowadays to hear a preacher making references to supposed promises in the Bible that promise believers to have financial and economic prosperity. Statements like, “God doesn’t want us to live in poverty” and “God promises to bless you economically if you honor Him” and so on, give the impression that Christians should believe for and seek material, financial, economic prosperity on this earth. Frequently the impression is given which ultimately makes people think, “God wants me to have more money”.
http://www.puregospeltruth.com/prosperity-preachers-and-financial-gain---does-god-want-you-to-be-rich.html (http://www.puregospeltruth.com/prosperity-preachers-and-financial-gain---does-god-want-you-to-be-rich.html)
Thanks Atty, I was really hoping someone would mention this so that I can explain further.
Because this is a good example where the mindset of the people has fallen under the stronghold and lies of the devil. Although there are indeed many "prosperity gospel" preachers and teachers proliferating these days[sabi ko nga may fake kasi may genuine], you cannot remove the word abundance and prosperity in the bible especially as God's promise to His people.
The devil manage to give the word "prosperity" and "abundance" a bad name that when you mention it, people automatically think of material gains just like you said. And people believed that followers of Jesus should be poor just like Jesus is.
But there is nowhere in the bible that mentions Jesus is poor. Modest living, yes but not poor. How can He be poor that even at birth He recieved expensive gifts. How can one be poor if you can turn water to wine, multiply bread and fish, pay taxes by fishing, got money box from people's offering, got free provisions for a meeting hall and even a donkey to ride. And note that soldiers gambled for his clothes so they must be of value. He only became poor at the cross for our sake.
Out of context pa yata yung verse na ginamit mo dahil it speaks of world hating believer's but nothing to do with being poor. Notice also, all my verses are from new testament so its still relevant right?
Are you poor? Are you being persecuted now? Don't think so, so do you consider yourself a follower of Jesus?
Consider what David says in Psalm 23, "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want ...". In Jewish it connotes "I shall lack nothing". This is what the abundance and prosperity that the gospel is coming from.
Poor is lackness of something [not necessarily material or financial]. In abundance or being prosperous means there are supplies for what you need. Philippians 4:19 says "And my God shall supply ALL your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus."
And of course sabi din nya in Matthew 6:33 "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and ALL these things shall be added to you."
So how can one be poor if God has clearly promised to supply ALL and ALL will be added to us? And since you are seems to be good at hebrews and greek, could you find what the word "ALL" means kung pang spiritual lang sya.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 14, 2015 at 06:49 PM
Ano ba ang pangangailangan "NEED" ng isang anak ng Diyos, food both physical and spiritual, clothing, and shelter. Other than these it is already a luxury.
Post by: tony on Oct 14, 2015 at 07:44 PM
Quote
On the contrary, God never meant for man to be poor. That was the devil's schemes.
so talaga palang maraming demonyo sa lupa..... >:D
Post by: barrister on Oct 14, 2015 at 07:46 PM
Take note the phrase "God shall supply ALL YOUR NEED"...
Ano ba ang pangangailangan "NEED" ng isang anak ng Diyos, food both physical and spiritual, clothing, and shelter. Other than these it is already a luxury.
Tama.
Hindi na kailangang lumayo sa talata. Napakasimple niyan:
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Mt. 6:25-34)
Life, body, food, drink and clothing lang ang sinasabi diyan. E di basic necessities lang pala.
"Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink." --- Anong klaseng eat and drink? Food and drink that is sufficient to sustain life. Kasama ba ang Wagyu steak at Cognac brandy? Hindi.
"Or about your body, what you will wear." --- Anong klaseng clothes? Clothes sufficient to protect your body from the elements. Kasama ba ang Armani suit diyan? Hindi.
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." --- Ano daw yung sinasabi ni Kristo na "all these things"?
Simple. All these things Christ previously mentioned --- food, drink and clothing.
Ano pa nga ba, e di basic necessities lang. All these things daw? Oo nga, all these basic necessities daw. Kulit... :D
Walang pangakong bahay sa Tagaytay Highlands; walang 75-inch 4K TV. Paanong naging abundance and prosperity yan? :D
Mag-abuloy ka, kapatid. Babalik sa yo yan. Mas malaki bigay, mas malaki balik, siksik, liglig at umaapaw.
Si pastor ang aapaw, hindi ikaw... :D
Post by: tony on Oct 14, 2015 at 08:23 PM
Quote
Mag-abuloy ka, kapatid. Babalik sa yo yan, siksik, liglig at umaapaw.
Si pastor ang aapaw, hindi ikaw...
ma katabi kaming simbahan o kapilya, ang lakas ng sound system,
sabi ng pastor, "pag hindi kayo nagbigay ng ikapu, ninanakawan nyo ang Diyos"
napaisip ako, nagbibgay ba ng official receipt ang Diyos?
me nakatrabaho ako sa abroad, taga nueva viscaya, merong isang farmer na
tila baga umaasenso, lumapit ang pastor at pinatuloy nya, ginawan nya ng maliit na
chapel at pinakain ang pamilya......kaso inabot ng malas, tinamaan ng matitinding bagyo,
so madal't sabi, naubos ang kabuhayan, so kasabay ng paglaho ng yaman nya,
lumayas ang pastor, lumipat ng ibang bayan....
Post by: dpogs on Oct 14, 2015 at 09:48 PM
A prayer of a righteous man availeth much. If you pray, it will be given to you according to His grace.
Post by: barrister on Oct 14, 2015 at 10:10 PM
But the Bible never mentioned that if you're christian or believer you will be poor materially.
I agree.
There is no promise of wealth, abundance and prosperity for Christians. But that doesn't mean all Christians are supposed to be poor.
It only means material prosperity is not guaranteed.
Christians can be rich, poor, or anywhere in between. There is no mandatory requirement of material poverty.
Joseph of Arimathea is described by Mt. 27:57 as a rich man who was also a disciple of Jesus, yet Jesus never told him to give all of his wealth away to the poor. Which only proves that a disciple of Christ is not required to live in poverty.
Therefore, it is possible for a person to be both rich and a disciple of Christ at the same time. More so for a middle-class guy who doesn't happen to be destitue.
However, to say that Jesus came so that Christians can have an abundant, prosperous life --- that just isn't true. Prosperity theology is what that is.
Post by: panzimus on Oct 15, 2015 at 12:22 AM
Post by: JT on Oct 15, 2015 at 04:43 AM
Tama.
Hindi na kailangang lumayo sa talata. Napakasimple niyan:
25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. (Mt. 6:25-34)
Life, body, food, drink and clothing lang ang sinasabi diyan. E di basic necessities lang pala.
"Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink." --- Anong klaseng eat and drink? Food and drink that is sufficient to sustain life. Kasama ba ang Wagyu steak at Cognac brandy? Hindi.
"Or about your body, what you will wear." --- Anong klaseng clothes? Clothes sufficient to protect your body from the elements. Kasama ba ang Armani suit diyan? Hindi.
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." --- Ano daw yung sinasabi ni Kristo na "all these things"?
Simple. All these things Christ previously mentioned --- food, drink and clothing.
Ano pa nga ba, e di basic necessities lang. All these things daw? Oo nga, all these basic necessities daw. Kulit... :D
Walang pangakong bahay sa Tagaytay Highlands; walang 75-inch 4K TV. Paanong naging abundance and prosperity yan? :D
Mag-abuloy ka, kapatid. Babalik sa yo yan. Mas malaki bigay, mas malaki balik, siksik, liglig at umaapaw.
Si pastor ang aapaw, hindi ikaw... :D
The bible will clearly mention it if it is referring to basic needs only and if it is for all. Di nagkakamali o nagkukulang ang Holy Spirit, so why do you keep on adding this "basic only" to other scriptures? Jesus clearly told us not to worry on basic needs but He also told us to ask whatever in His name.
Not only you have been trapped in the lies of the devil, you are also mis-representing God's very generous nature. By saying expect only basic needs, you are also saying the Apostle John is wrong in praying for prosperity. John 1:2 says "Beloved, I pray that you MAY PROSPER IN ALL THINGS" and be in health, just as your soul prospers." Remember, John wrote this as he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So you are also saying the Holy Spirit is wrong to ask for it.
Or how about this verse in Psalm 37:4 "Delight yourself also in the Lord, And He shall give you the DESIRES of your heart." Isnt this clear about other things?
You see there are many promises of prosperity and abundance also but it has certain conditions. Unfortunately, many speakers have abused this and they have a big accountability to God. But why stop believing and limit your faith because of them? You don't rest your faith on other people or your experience, you put your faith in the Word of God.
Tell me, did you ask God for the car you are driving now? Its not mentioned in your basic needs, so had God given it you?
So can you ask God ng bahay sa Tagaytay Highlands or 75-inch 4K TV? Sure, asking lang naman eh. But kung hindi nya ibibigay eh hwag kang magagalit kasi you need to satisfy some conditions like in
James 4:3 "You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures."
And in
1 John 3:22 "And WHATEVER we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight."
Post by: JT on Oct 15, 2015 at 05:01 AM
so talaga palang maraming demonyo sa lupa..... >:D
Yes, Ephesians 6:12 says "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
In the Philippines, it seems the spirit of religiosity, corruption and poverty are the strongholds. People need to understand God's Word on these areas in order to have a breakthrough. John 8:32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
ma katabi kaming simbahan o kapilya, ang lakas ng sound system,
sabi ng pastor, "pag hindi kayo nagbigay ng ikapu, ninanakawan nyo ang Diyos"
napaisip ako, nagbibgay ba ng official receipt ang Diyos?
Well, it is written clearly in Malachi 3:8-12 that people are robbing God thru this. You see, tithes is returning to God. But it should not be mandatory. Remember God requires cheerful giver.
me nakatrabaho ako sa abroad, taga nueva viscaya, merong isang farmer na
tila baga umaasenso, lumapit ang pastor at pinatuloy nya, ginawan nya ng maliit na
chapel at pinakain ang pamilya......kaso inabot ng malas, tinamaan ng matitinding bagyo,
so madal't sabi, naubos ang kabuhayan, so kasabay ng paglaho ng yaman nya,
lumayas ang pastor, lumipat ng ibang bayan....
Bible is clear that there are genuine and fake men of God. That is why we have to be careful. And it is really wrong for pastors to ask their flock for support. Everyone must ask God only, yun naman ang tinuturo sa bible, to be dependent with God. And let God provide or use someone to give or support.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 15, 2015 at 05:50 AM
let's take example the life of Job, when God tested Job loyalty and faithfulness, and when Job recognize his standing before God which is being "poor in spirit" (Job 42:1-6), God doubled Job's fortune and blessed Job more in term of material things (Job 42:10-12).
God wants the best from us. God wants us to excel in every area of our life whether it is spiritual or material. God wants us to excel in our job which is when you excel in your job it means promotion = more money = more material things. God wants us to do the right thing and at the same time excel in our business which is = money.
but remember, that all these is according to God's will... when God said He will give things according to "OUR NEEDS" this doesn't mean what we need, but according to "HOW GOD VIEWS OUR NEEDS".
If we pray that we need food, but God sees that this time you need hunger, then God will never give you food. If you pray before God that you need a motorcycle, but God sees you just don't need a motorcycle what you need is a car, then He will give you a car - an unanswered prayer but much better.
Also, God will never give you things that you cant overcome. If God sees that you cant overcome temptation of being rich in this world then He will never make you rich.
Post by: JT on Oct 15, 2015 at 06:00 AM
that is right sir JT...
let's take example the life of Job, when God tested Job loyalty and faithfulness, and when Job recognize his standing before God which is being "poor in spirit" (Job 42:1-6), God doubled Job's fortune and blessed Job more in term of material things (Job 42:10-12).
God wants the best from us. God wants us to excel in every area of our life whether it is spiritual or material. God wants us to excel in our job which is when you excel in your job it means promotion = more money = more material things. God wants us to do the right thing and at the same time excel in our business which is = money.
but remember, that all these is according to God's will... when God said He will give things according to "OUR NEEDS" this doesn't mean what we need, but according to "HOW GOD VIEWS OUR NEEDS".
If we pray that we need food, but God sees that this time you need hunger, then God will never give you food. If you pray before God that you need a motorcycle, but God sees you just don't need a motorcycle what you need is a car, then He will give you a car - an unanswered prayer but much better.
Also, God will never give you things that you cant overcome. If God sees that you cant overcome temptation of being rich in this world then He will never make you rich.
Amen to that Sir.
I also like what God did to Isaac in Genesis 26:12-13 "Then Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped in the same year a hundredfold; and the Lord blessed him. The man began to PROSPER, and continued PROSPERING until he became very PROSPEROUS;"
Post by: JT on Oct 15, 2015 at 06:04 AM
Oh my God! This gives me a better understanding of Mt. 6:33. Kala ko talaga dati you will become extremely rich materially if you seek first the kingdom of God. Really a good thing na nadiscover ko tong threads (religion thread, holy trinity, etc) na to sa PDVD. My kudos to everyone for the really good conversation here.
I used to think the same as well until God corrected me over and over again using only Psalm 37:4 "DELIGHT yourself also in the Lord, And He shall give you the DESIRES of your heart." So let me share my testimony.
I was a new believer when I read this verse and i got so excited by it. I started attending bible studies and sunday service [but just for attendance sake] thinking this is the way to delight myself with the Lord so that He give in to my desires. And true enough, I am getting all I want.
But there comes a time that my desires are not being given so I ask God whats wrong. God reminded me on the verse Psalm 37:4 but highlighted the word DELIGHT. I need to do proper delighting in the Lord. Having the right attitude of attending bible studies[have a genuine interest in the Word of God] and the right heart of worship. So I did as told, and true once again I'm getting all the desires of my heart.
Again, it comes a point that my desires are not being given anymore so I ask God what now? Again using Psalms 37:4 but this time God highlighted the word DESIRE. All my desires are wrong, all for worldy pleasures. So I did as told, genuinely desiring for lost souls to repent and be saved. To seek righteousness and establish His kingdom.
And you know what, God has granted my old desires as well. So I ask God why is He giving it to me again? Sabi nya, didnt I say "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you"
Do it God's way, it's all in the bible. Study and learn from it. And always remember God's plan for everyone is in Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
Post by: jerix on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:03 AM
On the contrary, God never meant for man to be poor. That was the devil's schemes.
So do you think the devil is now on the upper hand?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:10 AM
So do you think the devil is now on the upper hand?
actually the devil owned this world. if the material wealth we receive here on earth didn't come from God then definitely the devil gave it to us. :(
Post by: jerix on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:28 AM
actually the devil owned this world. if the material wealth we receive here on earth didn't come from God then definitely the devil gave it to us. :(
What a situation...God created our world but somebody else is reigning. This is the reason sometimes why I could not seem to agree how people interprets what they read on the bible.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:36 AM
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:48 AM
actually the devil owned this world. if the material wealth we receive here on earth didn't come from God then definitely the devil gave it to us. :(
Sino ba ang pinagbigyan ng earth?
Psalms 115:16 The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.
Eto yung reason why we have problems in life.
Eccl 7:29 This only have I found: God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many
schemes."
Walang pag aari ang devil para ibigay sa tao. The devil influence (deceiving) man to use resources given to man for evil purpose.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Started at Gen 3
1Now 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’?”
2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3but 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.”
6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:02 AM
What a situation...God created our world but somebody else is reigning. This is the reason sometimes why I could not seem to agree how people interprets what they read on the bible.
don't get me wrong... the Bible state that Satan is the ruler of this world, the world of unbelieving. But Satan cant rule the believers, Satan doesn't have power over God's son. though he may hurt them but satan cant touch their souls.
Satan is the god of this world.
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Cor. 4:4
Satan is the prince of the air
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Ephesians 2:2
Satan is the prince/ruler of this world
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31
Satan even offered this world to Jesus
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
when satan offered this world to Jesus, Jesus Christ never objects. Instead Jesus said 'worship only God and serve Him only', Jesus didn't say that Satan is liar that moment.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:05 AM
The main problem is the diefication of man.
Started at Gen 3
1Now 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’?”
2The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3but 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.”
6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Is man not predestined for deification? I asked because you believe in predestination.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:08 AM
don't get me wrong... the Bible state that Satan is the ruler of this world, the world of unbelieving. But Satan cant rule the believers, Satan doesn't have power over God's son. though he may hurt them but satan cant touch their souls.
Satan is the god of this world.
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Cor. 4:4
Satan is the prince of the air
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Ephesians 2:2
Satan is the prince/ruler of this world
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31
Satan even offered this world to Jesus
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
when satan offered this world to Jesus, Jesus Christ never objects. Instead Jesus said 'worship only God and serve Him only', Jesus didn't say that Satan is liar that moment.
when satan offered this world to Jesus
dpogs, please take note that the world was not offered, it is the kingdoms:
showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:13 AM
Is man not predestined for deification? I asked because you believe in predestination.
This might enlighten you:
Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Post by: bumblebee on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
This might enlighten you:
Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Okay, let me rephrase that. Was Adam and Eve predestined to eat the forbidden fruit?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM
when satan offered this world to Jesus
dpogs, please take note that the world was not offered, it is the kingdoms:
showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
oh my mistakes.... yes... the Kingdoms of this world.
Post by: rexFi on Oct 15, 2015 at 11:54 AM
They are predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son <-- e.g. Sanctification(?) which is Synergistic but still gives glory to God.
For the correct understanding of Predestination, see us here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/predestination
Okay, let me rephrase that. Was Adam and Eve predestined to eat the forbidden fruit?
Nope. Also next question for that is... what was Adam's motivation? The answer is Free will(Libertarian)
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/?s=libertarian
Although not the same with our current state (Totally Depraved, we need Grace).
Just click the links ^
Post by: jerix on Oct 15, 2015 at 12:21 PM
6When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
If Adam and Eve did not eat the forbidden fruit they should not have realized that they were naked. They had become conscious of themselves and their sexuality only after they ate the fruit. Mutual attraction came thereafter. And they could not have performed that intimate and ultimate act that started the growth of mankind if not for the fruit. Do you agree?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 01:02 PM
If Adam and Eve did not eat the forbidden fruit they should not have realized that they were naked. They had become conscious of themselves and their sexuality only after they ate the fruit. Mutual attraction came thereafter. And they could not have performed that intimate and ultimate act that started the growth of mankind if not for the fruit. Do you agree?
Naked in a way that they have nothing that is why they need to put something to cover:
7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
And they could not have performed that intimate and ultimate act that started the growth of mankind if not for the fruit.
this is not the case after the fall of man because God has already commanded the below:
Gen 1:26Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,a and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Post by: jerix on Oct 15, 2015 at 01:24 PM
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”[/color]
Did this happen first before Adam and Eve ate the fruit?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 01:28 PM
^^^ yep he foreknew those who "love God" in verse 28. <-- they are not predestined to Love God sorry.
They are predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son <-- e.g. Sanctification(?) which is Synergistic but still gives glory to God.
For the correct understanding of Predestination, see us here:
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/predestination
Nope. Also next question for that is... what was Adam's motivation? The answer is Free will(Libertarian)
https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/?s=libertarian
Although not the same with our current state (Totally Depraved, we need Grace).
Just click the links ^
They are predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son <-- e.g. Sanctification(?) which is Synergistic but still gives glory to God.
I think this is more Monergistic than Synergistic.
Who is the one who predestined them? God
What was being acheived? to be conformed to the image of his Son
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, whoi have been called according to his purpose.
It is evident that the action in verse 28 : "God works"
29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
It is evident that the work is being done by GOD (all of "he" pronoun below).
30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
I might agree that Adam exercise free will the so called Libertarian and yes after the fall the choices and decision of man are based on the consequences and result , thus Totally Depraved, we need Grace
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 01:35 PM
Did this happen first before that Adam and Eve
I don't want to speculate but this what is written in Genesis 2
But for Adamf no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribsg and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the ribh he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
I might happened before the fall of man, since verse 24 indicated union and verse 25 declared "his wife".
In response to ultimact act.
(edited)
Post by: pTrader on Oct 15, 2015 at 02:01 PM
Did this happen first before Adam and Eve ate the fruit?
Yung increase as stated in Genesis start in Chapter 4
1Adama made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.b She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forthc a man.” 2Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Nov 07, 2015 at 01:16 PM
Post by: jerix on Nov 07, 2015 at 03:33 PM
Yung increase as stated in Genesis start in Chapter 4
1Adama made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.b She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forthc a man.” 2Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
So whats the answer bro? did the carnal knowledge happen before or after the fruit eating event?
Post by: pTrader on Nov 09, 2015 at 09:18 AM
So whats the answer bro? did the carnal knowledge happen before or after the fruit eating event?
Sex is before.
Gen 2:
24That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Post by: bumblebee on Nov 09, 2015 at 09:23 AM
Post by: jerix on Nov 09, 2015 at 10:15 AM
They were having sex but didn't "know" they were naked?
Precisely why I asked. I believe all the while that it was the eating of the fruit that broke their innocence to sex. Because what is the significance of that biblical account that after they ate they realized that they were naked and became conscious of themselves if they were already lustfully enjoying sex before hand.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 09, 2015 at 10:34 AM
They were having sex but didn't "know" they were naked?
Precisely why I asked. I believe all the while that it was the eating of the fruit that broke their innocence to sex. Because what is the significance of that biblical account that after they ate they realized that they were naked and became conscious of themselves if they were already lustfully enjoying sex before hand.
Parang ganun sir. They know they were naked probably pero they had no idea of lust.
Sir Jerix I think you hit the right word. Iba yun having sex and iba yun "lustfully" having sex. I may be wrong though.
Post by: pTrader on Nov 09, 2015 at 10:43 AM
Children from religious households more selfish and mean than those from secular households. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study?CMP=share_btn_fb)
if religiousity dictates that they are right you are wrong then that would be the case...
Post by: jerix on Nov 09, 2015 at 10:52 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Nov 09, 2015 at 10:54 AM
Parang ganun sir. They know they were naked probably pero they had no idea of lust.
Sir Jerix I think you hit the right word. Iba yun having sex and iba yun "lustfully" having sex. I may be wrong though.
Is there even such a thing as lust-less sex (for humans at least)?
Post by: DVD_Freak on Nov 09, 2015 at 11:41 AM
Is there even such a thing as lust-less sex (for humans at least)?
Yun sa mga sex workers....you can call it siguro lust-less sex.
Post by: barrister on Nov 12, 2015 at 01:22 PM
Children from religious households more selfish and mean than those from secular households. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study?CMP=share_btn_fb)
That study is flawed and probably biased in favor of atheism.
No wonder it was published in a Biology journal instead of a Psychology/Sociology journal. Lack of knowledge in behavioral sciences will cause flaws in methodology and conclusions.
For example, the study failed to take into account that the lower income groups tend to be less educated and more religious; the higher income groups tend to be more educated and non-religious.
The identification of a child from a religious family may actually be identifying a child from a low-education family rather than from a religious family per se. Therefore, the children's behavior was fundamentally influenced by the mindset of the low-education vs. high-education parents and environment rather than religiosity.
=============================
No, atheist kids are not more altruistic than religious kids
November 10, 2015 by Matthew Facciani (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/author/mfacciani/)
A recent study came out suggesting that atheist children are more altruistic than the children of believers. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/06/study-religious-kids-are-jerks.html?via=desktop&source=twitter)I’m an atheist so you might think I’d be happy to count this as a win for Team Atheism and forget about it. However, I’m also a social scientist so I was very interested in the methods of this study. After actually reading the journal article, (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7.pdf)I found three major flaws in this study.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2015/11/no-atheist-kids-are-not-more-altruistic-than-religious-kids/?ref_widget=popular&ref_blog=friendlyatheist&ref_post=global-survey-finds-63-of-worlds-population-is-religious-while-11-are-convinced-atheists (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accordingtomatthew/2015/11/no-atheist-kids-are-not-more-altruistic-than-religious-kids/?ref_widget=popular&ref_blog=friendlyatheist&ref_post=global-survey-finds-63-of-worlds-population-is-religious-while-11-are-convinced-atheists)
Fatal Flaws in that Religion and Generosity Study
By GEORGE YANCEY (https://stream.org/author/georgeyancey/)
Published on November 9, 2015
The difficulties starts with Decety and his co-authors using a measure known as “the dictator game” to determine the level of altruism among their subjects. However, it is highly questionable (https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/166500/0/CBESS-11-15.pdf) that this game can assess altruism. This tool instead may measure compliance to the instructor of the game.
... Moreover, to understand any research one should explore what others have found about the topic. There is other research looking at the relationship of generosity and religion. Religion has been shown to correlate to the willingness of individuals to volunteer (http://asr.sagepub.com/content/71/2/191.short), to give money to charity (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20058103?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) and even to be nice (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2580017?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents).
That research focused on adults instead of children, but this produces important questions. If religious children are so selfish and immoral, then how do they become generous, friendly adults? Conversely, how do the altruistic secular children grow up to be, on average, less generous and kind as adults than their religious counterparts? The authors do not seem to have grappled with the greater research literature on this topic. If they had, then they would have addressed those questions and been a little more circumspect about making pronouncements about secular superiority in morality.
https://stream.org/fatal-flaws-religion-generosity-study/ (https://stream.org/fatal-flaws-religion-generosity-study/)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 12, 2015 at 05:16 PM
Here’s Why That Study Claiming Religious Kids Are Less Altruistic Stinks. Updates
NOVEMBER 9, 2015 / BRIGGS
Heard about that scientific study which scientifically shows non-religious kids are scientifically more altruistic than unscientific religious kids? The Guardian summarized it thusly: “Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds: Religious belief appears to have negative influence on children’s altruism and judgments of others’ actions even as parents see them as ‘more empathetic’.”
Scientifically speaking, this is crap. Here’s why.
The scientific science “study” The Guardian cites is the peer-reviewed article “The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World” in the journal Current Biology by Jean Decety and a bunch of others. Biology? Never mind.
Authors gathered kids, 5 to 12, from the US, Canada, China, Jordan, Turkey and South Africa and asked them a bunch of scientific questions, scientifically quantified those questions, produced scientific statistics, and then made scientific propositions about the whole of the human race. Say, are there differences in behavior between 5- and 12-year-olds? That doesn’t sound like a scientific question, so never mind.
Here’s how to you can replicate their study at home. First, define altruism. Go on, I’ll wait.
Have a definition in mind? I’m sure it’s correct and matches everybody else’s definition in precise detail, details like no-greater-love, supreme sacrifice, kindness, patience, love, and so on, right? Well, maybe not, but never mind. Instead, think about how you would quantify your definition. Quantification makes your definition scientific. Science means unquestionable truth.
Was your answer about quantification the “Dictator game”? Like this (from the Supplementary description)?:
[C]hildren were shown a set of 30 stickers and told to choose their 10 favorite. They were then told “these stickers are yours to keep.” Children were instructed that the experimenter did not have the time to play this game with all of the children in the school, so not everyone would be able to receive stickers. Children were finally shown a set of envelopes and informed that they could give some of their stickers to another child who would not be able to play this game by putting them in one envelope and they could put the stickers they wanted to keep in the other envelope. Experimenters turned around during the child’s choice and children were instructed to inform the experimenter when they were finished. Altruism was calculated as the number of stickers shared out of 10.
Yes, this scientifically captures every possible nuance of the scientific concept of altruism, doesn’t it? Science science science science. Science. It must be science! Scientists wrote this, peer scientists reviewed it, and scientists nod sagely when reading it.
Now define “religiosity” for kids. I’ll wait again.
Have it? Ha ha! That was a trick question. The authors never assessed the “religiosity” of kids; they did it for the kids’ “caregivers” instead. How? The authors asked parents to name their religion. They also asked parents questions like “How often do you experience the ‘divine’ in your everyday life?” They took pseudo-quantified answers from these and combined them scientifically with a quantification of religious attendance and derived a complete scientific quantification of “religiosity.” This was assigned to each kid in the study.
After that, “Children completed a moral sensitivity task programmed in E-prime 2.0 and presented on ASUS T101MT Touchscreen computers…” My goodness! How scientific! An ASUS T101MT! Just think how dramatically the results might have changed had they used an ASUS ROG G752! Or an ACER C910-C37P!
You know what happened next. Wee p-values through the terrible abuse of regression on the pseudo-quantified answers. A picture showing one of these is at the top. Notice the wee p-values? That makes the findings scientific.
All those dots are the answers to the pseudo-quantifications for each kid. The flat surface is the regression (expressing this and nothing else: the change in the central parameter of a normal distribution representing uncertainty in “altruism”; did you think it was something different?). Notice almost none of the dots are near this flat surface? That means this model has no real predictive value.
Which, scientifically speaking, means this study is crap. And where I use “science” in the old-fashioned, pre-government-grant way.
Finally, no paper would be complete without wild, over-reaching theorizing about cause. The authors say their findings “contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others”. Idiots everywhere are taking this literally. I’m too tired to make a joke about science. You do it.
This study is so bad that it’s good. I mean, it stinks to high heaven; nearly everything is wrong with it, start to finish. Yet it’s good because it takes so much effort to dissect, and the effort reduces the critic to such a sputtering mess that the criticism is bound to sound like an old fart yelling at the kids to get off the lawn.
Why I am Right Update P-values are rotten evidence for anything (click here to learn), (2) Regression is deeply flawed and not what you think (click here, here, or here to learn), (3) Probability models do not prove cause (click here, (4) Asinine studies like this are common (click here) or here). And don’t forget that altruism was not measured, but that kids sticking stickers in envelopes was. How much influence did the researchers have, especially with the younger kids? I mean, did kids stick stickers because they wanted to prove to the whitecoat they were compliant or because they wanted to be liked or because they wanted to share? Altruism forsooth!
And most importantly, don’t throw a temper tantrum and (for you men) cry like a little girl or say that I am a bad person. Show—exactly—where I am wrong and the authors right. If you cannot do this, keep your mouth shut. (I am too tired and too surly this morning to put this more politely).
Post by: barrister on Nov 12, 2015 at 08:20 PM
This is how the mechanics of the Dictator Game were described:
Children were shown a set of 30 stickers and told to choose their 10 favorite. They were then told “these stickers are yours to keep.” Children were instructed that the experimenter did not have the time to play this game with all of the children in the school, so not everyone would be able to receive stickers. Children were finally shown a set of envelopes and informed that they could give some of their stickers to another child who would not be able to play this game by putting them in one envelope and they could put the stickers they wanted to keep in the other envelope. Experimenters turned around during the child’s choice and children were instructed to inform the experimenter when they were finished. Altruism was calculated as the number of stickers shared out of 10.
Experimenters simply turn around during the child's choice; the child informs the experimenter when the choice has been made.
I wonder why the experimenter does not simply leave the room while an assistant records the children via CCTV.
Does the experimenter want to make the child feel that the experimenter is always present, thereby minimizing the child's independence in making his choice?
Does this merely reflect a child's obedience, where a child coming from a higher-income household (higher income= higher education= less religious) is more obedient than one from a lower-income household?
It does not even consider that kids from wealthier households might tend to be more giving than kids from poorer households.
Post by: tony on Nov 27, 2015 at 03:03 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Nov 28, 2015 at 01:01 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Nov 28, 2015 at 08:19 PM
Post by: tony on Nov 30, 2015 at 02:46 PM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Dec 03, 2015 at 03:27 PM
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/743367/inc-leaders-face-us-raps?utm_content=buffercfc4f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/743367/inc-leaders-face-us-raps?utm_content=buffercfc4f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Post by: tony on Dec 09, 2015 at 08:16 AM
Post by: JT on Dec 10, 2015 at 04:03 AM
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/12308245_936711429698919_4377837950480565697_n.jpg?oh=d24fc20568172f65f86ebeb1a0ee9c5b&oe=5718D685)
Actually Hitler does not represent for all the Christians denominations here but for the Catholics. Historians believed Hitler & the Nazi's in world war 2 was religious in nature. Hitler was a devout Catholic and believe Jews are the problems of this world. They say, Hitler hates the Jews for crucifying Jesus.
And they were blessed and supported by the Vatican for this cause. There was even a mass conducted by Vatican black pope for Germany to have victory in this war.
Post by: tony on Dec 10, 2015 at 06:12 AM
he came second best, and the fact that Jews are financially well off while Hitler was hard up,
to sum it up "inggit".....
so you see that charlatans have a great capacity in herding people to their doom as what we see in that war...like the same religious charlatans led the about 800 people murdered in Guyana, and folks burned alive in Wako Texas...
as Jesus said, come to me those of you who are tired and weary and i will give you rest....
isn't organised religion supposed to be like that and not be judgemental of people?
such is what i see in our roman catholic church...
did you know that a Jew bankrolled the Nazis in the early stages when they were not yet in power?
and that Hitler had this same man murdered after all the help he got?
Post by: tony on Dec 10, 2015 at 06:25 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Dec 10, 2015 at 09:28 AM
Post by: ninjababez® on Dec 10, 2015 at 09:32 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10352037_335652229926010_1015472130553343704_n.jpg?oh=b6005e3fa994fc43737d82138024ae9f&oe=571D3BEE&__gda__=1457296991_48eea9a161a5d249536a6fddd9451339)OT lang, totoo ba tsismis about mother teresa pocketing donations?
Post by: tony on Dec 10, 2015 at 11:49 AM
Post by: RU9 on Dec 10, 2015 at 12:50 PM
It is good news about some of the changes. Unfortunately, we are still in the dark when it comes to their financial records,” says Gonzalez. The donation issue first came up in the early 1990s when it was revealed that Charles Keating, an American banker known for the infamous “saving and loan scandal,” had donated up to $1.25 million to Missionaries of Charity. Amidst calls to return the money, Mother Teresa controversially chose to remain silent, an incident that is still sited by her critics who demand transparency.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html
Post by: tony on Dec 10, 2015 at 01:11 PM
Post by: barrister on Dec 10, 2015 at 08:38 PM
... 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... :D
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... :D
Was Mother Teresa not so saintly after all?
Researchers spark controversy by claiming
her care of the sick was 'dubious' and
handling of cash 'suspicious'
By Daily Mail Reporter
PUBLISHED:17:33 GMT, 3 March 2013| UPDATED:10:36 GMT, 4 March 2013
... At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries.
But these missions have been described as 'homes for the dying' by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Calcutta.
Doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers.
But the authors say the problem is not a lack of money, as the foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundred of millions of pounds.
Sisters of the Missions of Charity attend the state funeral for Mother Teresa in Calcutta but critics have sparked controversy claiming her care of the sick was 'dubious.'
They also say that following numerous natural disasters in India she offered prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid.
But she accepted the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti, said prof Larivee, and although millions of dollars were transferred to the various bank accounts, most of the accounts were kept secret.
Dr Larivie says: 'Given the parsimonious management of Mother Teresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287427/Was-Mother-Teresa-saintly-Researchers-spark-controversy-claiming-care-sick-dubious-handling-cash-suspicious.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287427/Was-Mother-Teresa-saintly-Researchers-spark-controversy-claiming-care-sick-dubious-handling-cash-suspicious.html)
Mother Teresa: Sadistic religious fanatic
guilty of medical malpractice
March 6, 2013
... Researchers report Mother Teresa saw beauty in suffering, and was far more willing to pray for those in her care rather than provide practical medical treatment. In addition to her medical malpractice and her perverse and sadistic enjoyment of the suffering of others, the study also raises questions about Teresa’s financial mismanagement of large sums of money, and her friendship with unsavory and immoral world leaders.
... Famed author and journalist Christopher Hitchens is cited in the new study. Hitchens was one of the first to raise questions about the authenticity of claims made by the Roman Catholic Church promoting Mother Teresa. The following is an excerpt from Hitchens’ 2003 critique:
“Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.
“And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go?
“Many more people are poor and sick because of the life of Mother Teresa: Even more will be poor and sick if her example is followed. She was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, and a church that officially protects those who violate the innocent has given us another clear sign of where it truly stands on moral and ethical questions.
http://www.examiner.com/article/mother-teresa-sadistic-religious-fanatic-guilty-of-medical-malpractice (http://www.examiner.com/article/mother-teresa-sadistic-religious-fanatic-guilty-of-medical-malpractice)
Missionaries of Inhumanity
Warning: Due to the distressing nature of the images, I’ve posted all of them at the very end of this post. May not be suitable to be viewed at work. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hemley Gonzalez, currently back in India, has found another volunteer for the Missionaries of Charity who is now, after 13 years of working for Mother Teresa’s famous organisation, willing to speak up about the countless cases of abuse, medical negligence, and financial fraud she witnessed. And she has many stories to tell. Here is the full-length interview, courtesy of Hemley Gonzalez.
http://humanizzm.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/missionaries-of-inhumanity/ (http://humanizzm.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/missionaries-of-inhumanity/)
Post by: majoe on Dec 10, 2015 at 08:49 PM
Post by: barrister on Dec 10, 2015 at 08:55 PM
Basta tumatanggap ng donations. Hindi naman ginagasta. May pinatayo ba yan kahit isang hospital?
Saan napupunta kung hindi ginagasta? Nobody knows.
Mother Teresa: Where are her millions?
... Perhaps the most lucrative branch of the organisation is the “Holy Ghost” House in New York’s Bronx. ... It is estimated that worldwide they collected at least $100 million per year — and that has been going on for many many years.
... Mother Teresa saw it as as her God given right never to have to pay anyone for anything. Once she bought food for her nuns in London for GB£500. When she was told she’d have to pay at the till, the diminutive seemingly harmless nun showed her Balkan temper and shouted, “This is for the work of God!” She raged so loud and so long that eventually a businessman waiting in the queue paid up on her behalf.
http://www.srai.org/mother-teresa-where-are-her-millions/ (http://www.srai.org/mother-teresa-where-are-her-millions/)
Post by: majoe on Dec 10, 2015 at 09:25 PM
Wala naman siyang pinagkakagastahan.
Basta tumatanggap ng donations. Hindi naman ginagasta. May pinatayo ba yan kahit isang hospital?
Saan napupunta kung hindi ginagasta? Nobody knows.
if nobody knows, God knows ;)
sakin lang, wala naman ako karapatan mag judge o mag criticize dahil di ko naman alam ang buong katotohanan. ang alam ko, inoffer ng mga missionaries ang buhay nila para sa ganyang gawain. kung may kalokohan man, Diyos na ang bahala sa kanila.
Post by: rulesmeister on Dec 10, 2015 at 09:45 PM
Kong nasan man ang milyones na yan, I dont think Mother Teresa gained much from it. Wala naman syang natitayong malalaking mga mansion or mga magagarang kotse or high-end na home theater.
Post by: tony on Dec 11, 2015 at 06:14 AM
but i hope the money all went to the poor in calcutta.....
Post by: bosyo on Dec 11, 2015 at 06:36 AM
Post by: tony on Dec 11, 2015 at 06:43 AM
Post by: ninjababez® on Dec 11, 2015 at 07:35 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Dec 14, 2015 at 09:37 AM
Post by: tony on Dec 14, 2015 at 11:40 AM
that s what makes any group alive and vibrant....
re:BOC....i have been challenging a group of your techies to come up with robots, to work in the BOC, ihmo that would be a good way to stop the corruption....
Post by: tony on Dec 23, 2015 at 09:54 AM
religion should never divide people, instead it should unite humanity and that there is hope after all....
and that religion must never be interested in people's pockets....;)
Post by: jerix on Dec 23, 2015 at 12:11 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Dec 23, 2015 at 05:25 PM
Post by: dpogs on Dec 23, 2015 at 05:38 PM
A man of God gave up his whole life (100% life) for charity.
Post by: tony on Dec 23, 2015 at 05:50 PM
Post by: oweidah on Dec 23, 2015 at 06:31 PM
An atheist gave his 99% share to charity.
A man of God gave up his whole life (100% life) for charity.
which r u?
Post by: abbey on Dec 23, 2015 at 07:23 PM
4Na binulag ng dios ng sanglibutang ito ang mga pagiisip ng mga hindi nagsisisampalataya, upang sa kanila'y huwag sumilang ang kaliwanagan ng evangelio ng kaluwalhatian ni Cristo, na siyang larawan ng Dios.
Post by: tony on Dec 24, 2015 at 12:54 PM
what will you answer?
Post by: dpogs on Dec 24, 2015 at 02:46 PM
Then if He see the blood in us the next question will be like that.
What have you done with the rest of my children?
If not, there will be no more question but gnashing of our own teeth.
Post by: skoivan on Jan 07, 2016 at 11:41 PM
"This innovative “video of the Pope” is causing a sensation"
The message of the video - especially coming from The Pope - is awesome. The YouTube comments though... are so sad to read.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 01:14 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 08, 2016 at 05:50 AM
Post by: oweidah on Jan 08, 2016 at 06:39 AM
sa pagkakaintindi ko, the Pope is asking for one world faith/government which is according to the prophecy in the Bible eh yan ang gawain ng isang anti-Christ.
nasobrahan sa born.against propaganda?
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:01 AM
^Really? Where in the Bible?
the bible never mentioned the word "one-world government", "one-world religion" or "one-world currency" but we can conclude that the they will exist sa ilalim ng pamumuno ng antichrist.
Revelation 13:1-2 : Antichrist ruler will rise
- a beast (which is commonly known as the antichrist) will rise (verse 1) and whose power came from satan (verse 2).
Revelation 13:3-4,8 : one-world religion
- the world will wonder after the beast (verse 3) and the world will worshiped the beast (verse 4) and all that dwell on earth shall worship him (verse 8 ).
Revelation 13:7 : one-world government
- power was given to him over all kindreds, tongues and nations.
Post by: oweidah on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:06 AM
bakit nakatutok k pope francis
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:12 AM
antichrist? dati c ronald reagan / american presidents potential a.c.,
bakit nakatutok k pope francis
wala naman nagpost sa thread na ito na antichrist si Pope. :)
ang sinabi lang naman ay ang gustong mangyari ng Pope ay gawain ng isang antichrist.
Post by: rulesmeister on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:19 AM
sa pagkakaintindi ko, the Pope is asking for one world faith/government which is according to the prophecy in the Bible eh yan ang gawain ng isang anti-Christ.
Dati ang anti Christ si John Lennon daw, tapos ung mga music groups na heavy metal like black sabbath etc, tapos nung 90's si Saddam naman, tapos ung pagbuo ng European union at Euro currency simula daw ng one world currency, then si Bin Ladin daw anti christ. Ngaun si Pope Francis naman. Hehehe.
Lahat ng generations, meron talagang mga taong labeled as "anti- christ", minsan religions like Judaism or Islam kasi ndi naniniwala ke Christ as God or ibang reilgions that share the same belief... In the 21st century, I dont believe this is real anymore.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:24 AM
the bible never mentioned the word "one-world government", "one-world religion" or "one-world currency" but we can conclude that the they will exist sa ilalim ng pamumuno ng antichrist.
Revelation 13:1-2 : Antichrist ruler will rise
- a beast (which is commonly known as the antichrist) will rise (verse 1) and whose power came from satan (verse 2).
Revelation 13:3-4,8 : one-world religion
- the world will wonder after the beast (verse 3) and the world will worshiped the beast (verse 4) and all that dwell on earth shall worship him (verse 8 ).
Revelation 13:7 : one-world government
- power was given to him over all kindreds, tongues and nations.
So you're saying, if one becomes famous, admired by everyone, eventually ruled the world, he's the anti-Christ?
Post by: oweidah on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:28 AM
wala naman nagpost sa thread na ito na antichrist si Pope. :)
ang sinabi lang naman ay ang gustong mangyari ng Pope ay gawain ng isang antichrist.
alamo dpogs baka musmos ka pa lang early 80s kasagsagan ng born again movement dito sa pinas, isa na yan sa isyu na lumabas, kasabay ng repent d end is near thingy.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:34 AM
Dati ang anti Christ si John Lennon daw, tapos ung mga music groups na heavy metal like black sabbath etc, tapos nung 90's si Saddam naman, tapos ung pagbuo ng European union at Euro currency simula daw ng one world currency, then si Bin Ladin daw anti christ. Ngaun si Pope Francis naman. Hehehe.
Lahat ng generations, meron talagang mga taong labeled as "anti- christ", minsan religions like Judaism or Islam kasi ndi naniniwala ke Christ as God or ibang reilgions that share the same belief... In the 21st century, I dont believe this is real anymore.
if the world and all people on earth worshiped the Pope then he is the antichrist. so far di pa naman so the Pope cant be the antichrist. :)
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:38 AM
alamo dpogs baka musmos ka pa lang early 80s kasagsagan ng born again movement dito sa pinas, isa na yan sa isyu na lumabas, kasabay ng repent d end is near thingy.
actually, panahon pa ng old testament yan. :) wala pa ang sperm at egg para mabuo tayong dalawa.
Post by: oweidah on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:46 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 07:57 AM
oo pero tinutukoy ko dito sa pinas
yup... pero ang sinasabi ko hindi pa nagagawa ang sperm at itlog na bubuo sa atin may isyu nang ganyan :)
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 08:00 AM
The question Jesus will ask is more likely "Where is the blood I shed in the cross of calvary?"
Then if He see the blood in us the next question will be like that.
If not, there will be no more question but gnashing of our own teeth.
i do not see Jesus as an indian giver, the blood he shed,
was out of love of humanity so that sins are forgiven..
for Jesus to ask what happened to his blood is far fetched,
it does not jive with his message of love....
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 08:03 AM
Dati ang anti Christ si John Lennon daw, tapos ung mga music groups na heavy metal like black sabbath etc, tapos nung 90's si Saddam naman, tapos ung pagbuo ng European union at Euro currency simula daw ng one world currency, then si Bin Ladin daw anti christ. Ngaun si Pope Francis naman. Hehehe.
Lahat ng generations, meron talagang mga taong labeled as "anti- christ", minsan religions like Judaism or Islam kasi ndi naniniwala ke Christ as God or ibang reilgions that share the same belief... In the 21st century, I dont believe this is real anymore.
John Lennon is more spiritual than some people who recites the bible word for word...
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 08:33 AM
i do not see Jesus as an indian giver, the blood he shed,
was out of love of humanity so that sins are forgiven..
for Jesus to ask what happened to his blood is far fetched,
it does not jive with his message of love....
actually it is figurative... we can change the question para mas malinaw and this is what I really meant
The question Jesus will ask is more likely - "Did you accept me as your Lord and Personal Saviour?"
Post by: pTrader on Jan 08, 2016 at 10:29 AM
actually it is figurative... we can change the question para mas malinaw and this is what I really meanthmm.. decisional regeneration.. hmmm
The question Jesus will ask is more likely - "Did you accept me as your Lord and Personal Saviour?"
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 11:50 AM
actually it is figurative... we can change the question para mas malinaw and this is what I really meant
The question Jesus will ask is more likely - "Did you accept me as your Lord and Personal Saviour?"
Jesus need ever ask, He knows what is truly in our hearts and minds even without asking, after all Jesus is God....
Post by: dpogs on Jan 08, 2016 at 03:31 PM
when Jesus returns and then asks you what have you done with the rest of my children?
what will you answer?
Jesus need ever ask, He knows what is truly in our hearts and minds even without asking, after all Jesus is God....
I just follow your lead :-)
Thankfully, Jesus knows also how to have a good conversation. Even though He knows our heart and mind, He still choose to ask questions. If you read the Bible, oftentimes Jesus opens up the conversation with a question. :-)
Post by: tony on Jan 08, 2016 at 04:13 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 26, 2016 at 09:38 AM
by faith....everything naman is by faith....Jesus can tell as He can look into your heart,
kung ang pakikipagdebate mo ay para lang magpa-impress, makalikap ng maraming member
at makuhanan mo ng marming ikapu.....Kita ng Diyos yan.....walang nalilihim sa kanya....
Yun lang. Hehe!
^pag nagbalik ba si Jesus, tatanungin ka ba tungkol sa bible?
aalamin ba nya ang laman ng utak mo kung ilang bersikulo at capitulo ang kaya mong irecite?
sa palagay ko, hindi ang laman ng utak mo at ng bulsa mo ang mahalaga kay Jesus,
bagkus ang laman ng puso mo, at hindi mo yan maikukubli sa kanya...
mabobola mo ang demonyo pero hindi ang Dyos....
Sino ba dito nagsasabi na yun ang tatanungin ng Diyos? Hehe!
Paano mo malalaman na ang laman ng puso mo ay sang-ayon sa gusto Niya?
Nun ikaw ba ay nanligaw sapat na ba na katwiran yun mahal mo ang nililigawan mo para sagutin ka niya? Hindi mo ba inaalam ang paborito niyang pagkain, lugar pasyalan, paboritong damit etc.?
Post by: rexFi on Jan 26, 2016 at 01:02 PM
but the difference is Jesus knows your answer even before you open your mouth....
Would He know your answer if you don't open your mouth?
See def.Foreknowledge. Afaik, He would know if you answer or do not answer. etc I you did answer then He knows what it exactly is. ie. He did not put the words in your mouth, its you who answered.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jan 27, 2016 at 01:22 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 27, 2016 at 01:33 PM
Post by: tony on Jan 27, 2016 at 01:36 PM
Would He know your answer if you don't open your mouth?
See def.Foreknowledge. Afaik, He would know if you answer or do not answer. etc I you did answer then He knows what it exactly is. ie. He did not put the words in your mouth, its you who answered.
no one knows for sure.....but he will know what is in your heart....
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jan 27, 2016 at 04:08 PM
^Ito siguro nagpapaikot ng buhay mo kaya masakit sa iyo maging Katoliko. Hindi lang pagtatalik ang buhay natin. Iyan ang problema kapag walang libangan o walang magawa.
Did you even bother to read it? You should!
Post by: dpogs on Jan 27, 2016 at 04:21 PM
Comparing human to animal? Well if you think you're animal enough to satisfy your body's desire anytime, anywhere at kung kanikanino wala na akong magagawa.
I believe human doesnt belong to animal kingdom. Human must have complete control over their body and its desires. Sexual pleasure is good if its in proper PTP.
I believe that sex organ were created primarily for reproduction not for sexual pleasure secondary na lang yan. Sa tingin mo kaya dadami ang tao kung ang pakikipagtalik ay parang disyerto sa hirap at walang kasarap sarap? Parang pagtatae yan, walang taong gaganahang tumae kung hindi masarap tumae. Primarily anus ginawa para sa pagtatae hindi for pleasure.
Yan ang malaking problema ng tao noon pa man hanggang ngayon, ang sundin ang pita ng kanilang mga laman...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 28, 2016 at 03:49 AM
Sex is good if it is in proper PTP (place, time and partner).
Comparing human to animal? Well if you think you're animal enough to satisfy your body's desire anytime, anywhere at kung kanikanino wala na akong magagawa.
I believe human doesnt belong to animal kingdom. Human must have complete control over their body and its desires. Sexual pleasure is good if its in proper PTP.
I believe that sex organ were created primarily for reproduction not for sexual pleasure secondary na lang yan. Sa tingin mo kaya dadami ang tao kung ang pakikipagtalik ay parang disyerto sa hirap at walang kasarap sarap? Parang pagtatae yan, walang taong gaganahang tumae kung hindi masarap tumae. Primarily anus ginawa para sa pagtatae hindi for pleasure.
Yan ang malaking problema ng tao noon pa man hanggang ngayon, ang sundin ang pita ng kanilang mga laman...
After years of debate re Darwin's theory of evolution, hindi pa din tayo nag-evolve. Animals pa din tayo. Hehe! Uso din sa animal kingdom ang cannibalism, incest, killing to survive. So pano yan?
Post by: tony on Jan 28, 2016 at 08:43 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 28, 2016 at 09:03 AM
Post by: tony on Jan 28, 2016 at 09:07 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 28, 2016 at 12:19 PM
Did you even bother to read it? You should!
"How Catholicism is ruining your sex life" - do I even have to bother reading it?
It is not bothering my sex life. And I follow what the Catholic Church teaches. My wife still loves me after all these years. She also follows Catholic Church teachings.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 28, 2016 at 12:21 PM
bakit kaya lagi na lang about "sex" ang topic ni KW kapag pinaguusapan ang Roman Catholics ???
Sama mo na rin iyung tungkol sa pari :)
Post by: tony on Jan 28, 2016 at 12:31 PM
Post by: oweidah on Jan 28, 2016 at 02:08 PM
d kaya anak ng paring katoliko yang si KW? >:D
da hu? bishop x ?
Post by: panzimus on Feb 13, 2016 at 05:04 AM
14. Sex is so important that it’s worth scripting your life around having the right kind and avoiding the wrong kinds.
Yes, sex is wonderful. Orgasm is a pleasure unlike any other, and sexual intimacy releases powerful feelings of wellbeing and connection. There’s a good evolutionary reason for that. But honestly, life offers many other forms of intimacy and pleasure. Those of us who aren’t jacked on adolescent hormones or else devoting major psychic energy to sexual repression have better things to do most of the time—things like being kind, curious, imaginative, industrious or nurturing—or savoring one of life’s other delights. Just because the Church is obsessed with sex doesn’t mean we all are.
So, just saying na di naman lahat ng post ni Klaus ay anti-religion or pro atheist. yung iba may sense din naman.
Post by: dpogs on Mar 15, 2016 at 07:17 AM
i remember a classmate in high school, nung tinuro ng teacher para magrecite ng topic, aba eh, pati comma, quotation raks at iba pa, nairecite....
religion should teach only one thing, "huwag kang magnakaw" yun lang at titino ang ating mundo...
nagtrabaho ako sa algeria ng higit three years, ang katwiran ng mga local, kaya raw maraming alibaba
ay kasalanan ng may-ari, sa kanila pag tinalikuran mo ang gamit mo, or iniwan mo na lang basta,
ibig sabihin daw noon ay ayaw mona at pwede na nilang kunin....katwirang arabo....
maliit lang ang porsiyento ng population ng tao ang mga magnanakaw and yet di pa rin matino ang ating mundo.
kayang sundin ng isang tao sa buong buhay niya ang no. 1-9 ng 10 Utos maliban sa isa - no. 10. "thou shalt not covet..."
if you covet and can't obtain it then it will lead to stealing or pagnanakaw or it may lead to murder.
Post by: tony on Mar 15, 2016 at 07:33 AM
if you take the word literally then you are lost...
pag nakiapid ka sa asawa ng may asawa, then ninakawan mo ng kabiyak ang kapwa mo..
pag kinitil mo ang buhay ng kapwa mo, then ninakawan mo ng pagkalinga ang iba pa...
pag tinulugan mo ang trabaho mo, then ninakawan mo ng pagkakataon ang company mo na umunlad...
pag ikaw ay isang employer at hindi ka nag-remit ng sss at withholding taxes,
then ninakawan mo ang gobyerno, at ang kawani mo ang mga legal na benepisyo..
religion should teach only one thing, love of fellowmen,
dahil kung mahal mo ang iyong kapwa, hindi ka magnanakaw...
if your religion teaches you about the superiority of your religion over any other,
then that is demagoguery.....
Post by: tony on Mar 15, 2016 at 07:41 AM
maliit lang ang porsiyento ng population ng tao ang mga magnanakaw and yet di pa rin matino ang ating mundo.
kayang sundin ng isang tao sa buong buhay niya ang no. 1-9 ng 10 Utos maliban sa isa - no. 10. "thou shalt not covet..."
if you covet and can't obtain it then it will lead to stealing or pagnanakaw or it may lead to murder.
you have a simplistic world view....
Post by: dpogs on Mar 15, 2016 at 07:56 AM
you have a simplistic world view....
"to covet" is a very simple word pero wala pang tao na nakakasunod nito maliban kay Jesus.
if you don't covet then hindi ka magnanakaw.
if you don't covet your neigbours wife then hindi ka makikiapid sa asawa ng may asawa
if you don't covet things from others then you wont kill others
if you don't covet more money then magreremit ka ng mga SSS at withholding taxes ng mga employee mo
if you don't covet sleep during work, then hindi ka matutulog sa oras ng trabaho
all sins start from our desire and then coveting...
simple lang ang ikasampung utos ng Diyos pero wala pang nakakasunod nito. "Thou shalt not covet..."
Post by: tony on Mar 15, 2016 at 08:01 AM
lahat ng pagnanakaw nagsimula sa paghahangad, yung tinawag mong covet...
maraming nakaka recite ng bible, pero duda ako na isinasapuso nila ang mga aral,
ang tingin ko, gusto lang nilang manalo ng mga debate tungkol sa bibliya...
Post by: dpogs on Mar 15, 2016 at 08:15 AM
you still have to use the word magnakaw, that is the end result....
lahat ng pagnanakaw nagsimula sa paghahangad, yung tinawag mong covet...
maraming nakaka recite ng bible, pero duda ako na isinasapuso nila ang mga aral,
ang tingin ko, gusto lang nilang manalo ng mga debate tungkol sa bibliya...
that is right... instead of teaching them na huwag magnakaw... teach them not to covet... dahil ang sinasabi mong "magnakaw" ay nagsisimula sa "covet".
sabi nga ni Jesus "Kung ikaw ay tumingin sa isang babae na may pagnanasa, ikaw ay nagkasala na ng pangangalunya."
ang pagtingin na may pagnanasa ay hindi nagbunga ng pagnanakaw pero siya ay nagkasala sa mata ng Diyos.
Post by: jerix on Mar 15, 2016 at 08:36 AM
sabi nga ni Jesus "Kung ikaw ay tumingin sa isang babae na may pagnanasa, ikaw ay nagkasala na ng pangangalunya." ang pagtingin na may pagnanasa ay hindi nagbunga ng pagnanakaw pero siya ay nagkasala sa mata ng Diyos.
Guilty ako dito pero di naman lahat ng girls...namimili din ang mata at utak natin.
Post by: dpogs on Mar 15, 2016 at 08:42 AM
Guilty ako dito pero di naman lahat ng girls...namimili din ang mata at utak natin.
walang masama if napalingon ka once... masama kung lumingon ka twice... :):):)
mas masama kung lumingon ka once pero mga 5 minutes naman katagal... :):):)
the lesson is never entertain any evil thought that will lead to any wrongdoing (or sabi nga "magnakaw")...
Post by: bumblebee on Mar 15, 2016 at 08:55 AM
Post by: jerix on Mar 15, 2016 at 09:08 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Mar 15, 2016 at 09:09 AM
Di ba instinct naman yung paglingon? ???
Animal instinct daw yun, so kapag ginawa mo, para ka rin raw hayop ;D
Post by: dpogs on Mar 15, 2016 at 10:17 AM
Di ba instinct naman yung paglingon? ???
It is but natural for human or animals na maatract sa opposite sex... What differentiate us from animals is we have self control or and will to control our lust.
It is also normal to every human to appreciate beauty, hence lumilingon. Pero kung ang lingon may kasamang pagnanasa at naglalaro sa isipan, then we are commiting adultery as per standard of Jesus.
Sa New Testament, iniisip pa lang natin nagkakasala na tayo.
Post by: dpogs on Mar 16, 2016 at 09:28 PM
religion is truly the "opium " of the people....
it makes the believers lose their critical thinking, their own humanity,
to be replaced by whatever the doctrines their church teaches them...
it teaches the people to accept whatever the government do to them without thinking,
without question without complaints....they can not see what is behind the negativity and the complaining,
they are quick to dismiss, and quickly cringe at mere hint of dissent....
for according to them, the leaders were appointed by god....
and so we have to be subservient always...
so i wonder, which god will allow a president who is no longer qualified for a 3rd term,
to become a dictator?
perhaps they could be talking about another god....
Are you talking about Roman Catholics?
Post by: tony on Mar 17, 2016 at 07:54 AM
pero bakit hindi nila maipanalo si Eddie Villanueva?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 17, 2016 at 07:58 AM
the born against mostly....the rc had that during Rizal's time...
pero bakit hindi nila maipanalo si Eddie Villanueva?
Probably kasi hindi sila block voting or baka walang influence ng church leaders ang voting congregation.
Post by: tony on Mar 17, 2016 at 08:03 AM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 17, 2016 at 08:46 AM
religion is truly the "opium " of the people....
it makes the believers lose their critical thinking, their own humanity,
to be replaced by whatever the doctrines their church teaches them...
above, still true sa RC ngayon. Over time, their doctrine change kahit ngayon. :(
Quote
it teaches the people to accept whatever the government do to them without thinking,
without question without complaints....they can not see what is behind the negativity and the complaining,
they are quick to dismiss, and quickly cringe at mere hint of dissent....
for according to them, the leaders were appointed by god....
and so we have to be subservient always...
I am glad and blessed that Jesus followed the government? Nasaan kaya tayo ngayon if Jesus disobey the authority of Pilate? and what if Peter successfully defended Jesus. Jesus was wrongfully accused, did Jesus rebel/complains against the government?
Even Jesus pay His taxes.
If you read the Bible carefully, one of Its main topic is for us to be submissive to any authority except if it violates/transgresses the Word of God.
Isa sa mga bagay na God really hate is a proud heart, a rebellious heart just like Satan.
If this government gave me rights to do things that will violate the Word of God, I will never exercise that right.
Post by: tony on Mar 17, 2016 at 09:11 AM
poor members, they never had a chance....
and when David Koresh took that women in her church as his wives, they were all submissive...
they all burned alive....
Post by: dpogs on Mar 17, 2016 at 10:20 AM
^oh yes, submissive that several hundreds of church members of the Jim Jones were killed...
poor members, they never had a chance....
and when David Koresh took that women in her church as his wives, they were all submissive...
they all burned alive....
As i have said, unless it violates the Word of God. Your example is one kind of blind faith.
Nasa Word of God ba ang pagkitil ng buhay lalot ito ay iyong sariling buhay?
Post by: tony on Mar 17, 2016 at 10:50 AM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM
Submit to any authority UNLESS it violates/transgress the Word of God.
I know what youre meant to, I hope you get what i meant too.
Your example is some sort of blind faith - submission outside the will of God.
Pero kung ganyan ang pakahulugan mo ng "submit to authority", its up to you.
Post by: tony on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:08 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:14 AM
^oh yes, submissive that several hundreds of church members of the Jim Jones were killed...
poor members, they never had a chance....
and when David Koresh took that women in her church as his wives, they were all submissive...
they all burned alive....
This happened because these people were stupid. Blindly listening to a man without the use of common sense. Further, if God really wanted to speak to you then there should be some signs.
Post by: tony on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM
under the influence, these people do stupid things...
Post by: dpogs on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:25 AM
Ang example mo ng mga cult na naging tragedy ay malinaw na paglabag sa authority which is the Word of God.
They followed their leader not God. Who owned our body? GOD commanded all His children to take care of their body because it belongs to God.
This happened because these people were stupid. Blindly listening to a man without the use of common sense. Further, if God really wanted to speak to you then there should be some signs.
No, It happened because they use their common sense instead of using the Word of God - final authority.
In our age - Age of Grace, hindi na kailangan gumawa ng Diyos ng sign. Dont tell me you still believe in signs?
God spoke/spake to us through His Word - The Bible. God really wanted to talk to us that is why He gave us His Word.
Post by: tony on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:43 AM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 17, 2016 at 11:56 AM
Post by: oweidah on Mar 22, 2016 at 07:22 AM
^that is why i say religion is the opium of the people....
under the influence, these people do stupid things...
they get rich 8)
Post by: tony on Mar 22, 2016 at 07:42 AM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 22, 2016 at 07:54 AM
they get rich 8)
wala nang tatalo sa Roman Catholics Church (religion) kung payamanan lang ang pag-uusapan :):):)
Post by: tony on Mar 22, 2016 at 08:04 AM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 29, 2016 at 10:56 AM
I agree but he trusted so much. He must have entertained the thought that changes will come so quick if Marcos is removed to the extent that he used the name of heaven to justify the anointment of people who came next. But I agree likewise that such pronouncement was dictated not because of his religious persuasions but of his political instinct as a Filipino.
Church, religion, specially church leader must learn to separate themselves from the government at all times.
Post by: rascal101 on Mar 29, 2016 at 11:25 AM
The Word of God teaches everyone to submit to all authority unless it violatesa the Word Of God - final authority.
Ang example mo ng mga cult na naging tragedy ay malinaw na paglabag sa authority which is the Word of God.
They followed their leader not God. Who owned our body? GOD commanded all His children to take care of their body because it belongs to God.
No, It happened because they use their common sense instead of using the Word of God - final authority.
In our age - Age of Grace, hindi na kailangan gumawa ng Diyos ng sign. Dont tell me you still believe in signs?
God spoke/spake to us through His Word - The Bible. God really wanted to talk to us that is why He gave us His Word.
Do you just simply pray for the sake of praying? Signs are indications that God is listening to you. These signs do not need to be so great. It can be small things or maybe a new a way of looking at things. When you are being given God's graces there are things you are able to do or understand compared to not having God's graces. These are the signs I am talking about.
Post by: rascal101 on Mar 29, 2016 at 11:31 AM
wala nang tatalo sa Roman Catholics Church (religion) kung payamanan lang ang pag-uusapan :):):)
Paano mo alam na mayaman nga ang simbahang Katoliko? May pruweba ka ba? Kung ako tatanungin gusto lang ipalabas ng ibang tao na mayaman nga ang Katolikong simbahan pero sino ba ang niloloko nila.
Post by: rascal101 on Mar 29, 2016 at 11:39 AM
Church, religion, specially church leader must learn to separate themselves from the government at all times.
Ang sabi ng diyos ibigay mo ang para sa diyos at ibigay mo ang para sa tao. Kailangan magawan mo ng paraan para masiyahan ang bawat isa. Hindi lang ito para sa mga tumatayong "leader" o pangulo. Ito ay para sa lahat. Hindi ba sinabi ng Diyos na hindi humihigit ang alaga kumpara sa nagtuturo. Katatapos lang ang mahal na araw ah. Nakalimot ka na ata.
Post by: rascal101 on Mar 29, 2016 at 11:45 AM
Are you talking about Roman Catholics?
"Opium" din sa mayaman ang pera nila gaya ng "opium" din ng mga nagmamarunong ang alam nila. Kung tutuusin "opium" iyung ipinamamalas nating kagalingan sapagkat ito ang paraan natin para maipakita na maipakita sa ibang tao na magaling tayo o kayang kaya natin gawin mga bagay bagay na parang napakadali.
Iyung mga naka "opium" ay "high na high" na parang ang taas taas na nila. Kapag masaya ka ganito pakiramdam. Ang tanong ngayon mali ba ang makaramdam ng kasiyahan? Bakit ba natin ipinapalabas na masama ang maging masaya kung wala naman ginagawang kalokohan? Inggit lang siguro.
Post by: dpogs on Mar 29, 2016 at 04:23 PM
Ang sabi ng diyos ibigay mo ang para sa diyos at ibigay mo ang para sa tao. Kailangan magawan mo ng paraan para masiyahan ang bawat isa. Hindi lang ito para sa mga tumatayong "leader" o pangulo. Ito ay para sa lahat. Hindi ba sinabi ng Diyos na hindi humihigit ang alaga kumpara sa nagtuturo. Katatapos lang ang mahal na araw ah. Nakalimot ka na ata.
I believe in the separation of church and government.
Post by: rascal101 on Mar 29, 2016 at 06:22 PM
"specially church leader must learn to separate themselves from the government at all times"
Samakatuwid ang pinapahiwatig nito ay para lang ito sa mga namumuno. Paano iyung mga pangkaraniwang pari?
Post by: dpogs on Mar 29, 2016 at 11:02 PM
^Ang sabi mo noong nakaraan ay
"specially church leader must learn to separate themselves from the government at all times"
Samakatuwid ang pinapahiwatig nito ay para lang ito sa mga namumuno. Paano iyung mga pangkaraniwang pari?
There is no such "ordinary priest", kahit sinong pari/pastor/ministro/papa ng maliit na kapilya o ng malalaking church they are all church leader.
Pero kung sasagutin ko tanong mo, even ordinary priest they must separate themselves from politics or affairs of the state/government.
Post by: oweidah on Apr 04, 2016 at 05:25 PM
ignore!
Post by: dpogs on Apr 04, 2016 at 06:57 PM
for someone posting sa religion thread tsktsk
ignore pa more!
Dito ako mag reply. Pangit haluan ng usapang religion ang sports.
Wala naman sigurong mali or di naman kasalanan na sabihin kong "walang kwentang team ang Lakers" or "curry is not the best player for me"
Magtaka ka kung ang nagpopost dito or iyong mga nagsasabing may faith sila eh nakikipagpustahan doon mismo sa thread ng NBA.
Na miss mo ko sa usaping politics noh... Religion at nba mo ko nahanap :)
Post by: tony on Apr 04, 2016 at 08:17 PM
Post by: oweidah on Apr 05, 2016 at 12:35 AM
Post by: tony on Apr 05, 2016 at 01:51 PM
Post by: tony on Apr 07, 2016 at 04:37 PM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 07, 2016 at 05:04 PM
http://realnewsrightnow.com/2015/07/protestant-leaders-declare-reunification-of-churches-under-the-holy-see/
Quote
...we participate in the sacrament of the Eucharist by accepting the actual body and blood of Christ, an event known as Transubstantiation, at the conclusion of the holy mass....
Tama ba pagkakabasa ko? Actual na katawan at dugo ni Jesus?
Quote
As part of their induction into the Catholic faith, all Protestants above the age of fifteen are required to undergo a Catholic Confirmation, one of three sacraments of initiation, out of seven total, which Catholics can receive. “Most, if not all, of us have been baptized,” said Father Brogran. “However, without formal Confirmation, our Protestant baptisms will be null, thus preventing us from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Kailan pa sinabi sa Bible na "formal Confirmation" is needed or required for entering Heaven?
Post by: tony on Apr 07, 2016 at 07:48 PM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 07, 2016 at 08:35 PM
^hindi ko alam yan, hindi pa ako nakarating doon....
Pero bilang isang catholic, yan ang paniniwala niyo?
- Transubstantiation - bread and wine becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ
- Catholic Confirmatuon is necessary to enter the Kingdom of Heaven
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2016 at 07:23 AM
in the end it is not what we say here on earth that will matter,
but how your God will see you as a human being...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 07:29 AM
kaya nga by faith and religion, if you believe......
ahh ok... tama ngang parang INC ang RC... if you did not conform di ka maliligtas (outside of INC/RC you're doomed.) :(:(:( outside of INC/RC you're doomed.
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2016 at 07:36 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 07:56 AM
who are you to judge?
I just read the article it mentioned that - "Catholic Confirmation is needed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven", and you also confirmed it - "faith and religion".
in the end it is not what we say here on earth that will matter,
but how your God will see you as a human being...
If we read the Bible, we are all sinners before God (Romans 3:10-12 KJV). Kaya nga may kasabihan na "we are all equal before the eyes of God" because we are all sinners.
It is not really how God see us as human being... but what really matters both here on earth and in heaven is our faith to Jesus Christ.
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2016 at 09:47 AM
but i hope He will see what was in your heart at kung paano mo inlagaan ang kanyang kawan...
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 08, 2016 at 09:57 AM
If we read the Bible, we are all sinners before God (Romans 3:10-12 KJV). Kaya nga may kasabihan na "we are all equal before the eyes of God" because we are all sinners.
I thought we're all equal because we are God's children. What happened to that?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 10:31 AM
I thought we're all equal because we are God's children. What happened to that?
The fall of Adam to sin and sin passed to all human except Jesus because He is not of Adam seed.
We have now son of Adam and son of God. Kaya nga amg sabi ni Jesus "except a man be born again he cannot see/enter the Kingsom of God" because Jesus knows that not all are children of God.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 08, 2016 at 10:45 AM
The fall of Adam to sin and sin passed to all human except Jesus because He is not of Adam seed.
We have now son of Adam and son of God. Kaya nga amg sabi ni Jesus "except a man be born again he cannot see/enter the Kingsom of God" because Jesus knows that not all are children of God.
I'm not talking about the original sin, but how God sees us equally.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 10:57 AM
I'm not talking about the original sin, but how God sees us equally.
That original sin was passed unto all men. All human being becomes sinner except Jesus. God see human as sinners. We are all equal in terms of our status before God as a human - being sinners.
All human are sinner but not all human are children of God.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 08, 2016 at 11:03 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 11:11 AM
Now that's just sad ;D
That is not the sad part.
God devise a perfect plan for salvation but most of us human rejected God's plan of salvation. That is the very sad part. Human rejected God's salvation, instead we choose our own understanding, we choose our own religion, we rely on ourselves rather than God.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 08, 2016 at 11:14 AM
That is not the sad part.
God devise a perfect plan for salvation but most of us human rejected God's plan of salvation. That is the very sad part. Human rejected God's salvation, instead we choose our own understanding, we choose our own religion, we rely on ourselves rather than God.
The sad part is that us being sinners is the only thing that makes us equal in God's eyes (according to your beliefs).
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 11:29 AM
The sad part is that us being sinners is the only thing that makes us equal in God's eyes (according to your beliefs).
It is in the Bible, the Bible said all human are sinners. The Bible also said that only few are God's children.
As i said, as "human being" we are all equal before God's eye because all human are sinners.
Also, i never mentiomed the phrase "the only thing", ikaw lang ang nag assume niyan.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 08, 2016 at 11:37 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 11:45 AM
So since it is in the Bible, and the Bible said all human are sinners and the Bible also said that only few are God's children, THEREFORE we are equal in God's because we are sinners??? See where I'm going here?
As human being we are equal to God because all human are sinners.
If you are talking about the love of God, then we are equal because God loves all sinner.
But you mentioned that we are equal because we are all His children. Never in the Bible mentioned that all are God's children.
Ikaw, sa tingin mo be we are all equal before God's eye because all human are His children?
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2016 at 12:33 PM
Quote
It is in the Bible,
what if Jesus returns and then ask you, what bible? ano ang isasagot mo?
Post by: jerix on Apr 08, 2016 at 01:07 PM
what if Jesus returns and then ask you, what bible? ano ang isasagot mo?
;D I am waiting for the answer.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Apr 08, 2016 at 02:37 PM
what if Jesus returns and then ask you, what bible? ano ang isasagot mo?
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 08, 2016 at 02:41 PM
Whatever the answer will not have any merit since this is just a what if.
So is the Bible because men wrote it.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 04:52 PM
what if Jesus returns and then ask you, what bible? ano ang isasagot mo?
I simply answer Jesus like this: "It is your Word."
So is the Bible because men wrote it.
It is written by men inspired by God.
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2016 at 05:33 PM
I simply answer Jesus like this: "It is your Word."
It is written by men inspired by God.
then what if Jesus say, "I never said those words" what will your reaction be?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 06:01 PM
then what if Jesus say, "I never said those words" what will your reaction be?
Then i will assume that the one talking to me is not Jesus of the Bible.
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2016 at 07:39 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 08, 2016 at 07:45 PM
It is written by men inspired by God.
Says who?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 08:06 PM
so how will you know, will you ask for some identification papers or something?
By his own word. I believe that the Bible is the very Word of God, since sinabi ng nagtanong sa akin na hindi siya nagsabi, eh di hindi siya.
How about you Sir Bumblebee and Sir Tony, do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
Post by: tony on Apr 08, 2016 at 08:14 PM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 08:18 PM
Says who?
From the Word of God - the Bible.
eh paano nga kung sabihan ka na , hindi akin yang bible mo...papano na?
I already gave you the answer. How about you, do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 08, 2016 at 08:24 PM
And if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, di nakasulat doon na ang tao ay kailangan ng Catholic Confirmation para makapasok sa langit... At di rin nakalagay sa Bible na ang bread and wine during the mass ay nagiging actual na katawan at dugo ni Cristo.
Post by: RU9 on Apr 08, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2016 at 07:15 AM
From the Word of God - the Bible.
I already gave you the answer. How about you, do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
what is it to you? i asked you a question and you run around in circles...
paano kung sabihan ka ni Kristo anong bible? hindi akin yan....hindi yan ang turo ko....paano ka na?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:00 AM
what is it to you? i asked you a question and you run around in circles...
paano kung sabihan ka ni Kristo anong bible? hindi akin yan....hindi yan ang turo ko....paano ka na?
I already answer that. Wala na kong magagawa if youre not satisfied.
Kahit anong paikot ikot pa pagusapan natin, my belief is that the Bible is the Word of God. Sinuman ang lumapit sa akin at magsabing siya si Jesus at sabihin niyang hindi galing sa kanya ang Bible, then it might be the devil trying to decieve my faith - Matthew 24.
And if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, di nakasulat doon na ang tao ay kailangan ng Catholic Confirmation para makapasok sa langit... At di rin nakalagay sa Bible na ang bread and wine during the mass ay nagiging actual na katawan at dugo ni Cristo.
Matthew 24
V.5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many
V.24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Can you find a version of Bible saying that a man needs Catholic Confirmation para makapasok siya sa Kingsom of Heaven?
Can you explain to me the catholic doctrine of substantiation na kung saan ang hawak ng pari na bread and wine ay nagiging actual na katawan at dugo ni Kristo?
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:08 AM
I already answer that. Wala na kong magagawa if youre not satisfied.
Matthew 24
V.5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many
V.24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Can you find a version of Bible saying that a man needs Catholic Confirmation para makapasok siya sa Kingsom of Heaven?
Can you explain to me the catholic doctrine of substantiation na kung saan ang hawak ng pari na bread and wine ay nagiging actual na katawan at dugo ni Kristo?
e paano nga kung itanggi ni Kristo yan?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:19 AM
e paano nga kung itanggi ni Kristo yan?
Sinuman ang lumapit sa akin at magsabing siya si Jesus at sabihin niyang hindi galing sa kanya ang Bible, then it might be the devil trying to decieve my faith - Matthew 24
Now answer my question
Required ba sa isang tao ang Catholic Confirmation para makapasok sa Kingdom of Heaven?
Paano naging "actual" na katawan at dugo ni Kristo ang tinapay at alak ma hawak ng pari?
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:24 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:31 AM
hindi mo nga masagot ang tanong ko, bakit kailangan ko sagutin ang tanong mo...
Sinagot na kita di mong matanggap ang sagot ko. If you think my asnwer is wrong wala na ko magagawa pero sinagot ko tanong mo.
Can you answer my question now?
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:32 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:40 AM
eh hindi mo nga nasagot.....
But I am the one to ask first a question, sinagot mo na ba?
But its ok, ill just ask other Roman Catholic members. Iyong tipong alam talaga kung ano sinalihan niyang religion.
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2016 at 09:56 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2016 at 01:02 PM
Totoo ba na kailangan ng isang tao ang Catholic Confirmation para siya ay maligtas?
Di ba sabi mo, totoo kang katoliko, naniniwala ka ba sa doktrina ng Roman Chatolics na transubstantiation na kung saan ang tinapay at alak ay nagiging actual na katawan at dugo ni Kristo?
Post by: newbie pa rin on Apr 09, 2016 at 06:22 PM
So is the Bible because men wrote it.Do you believe that God wrote the 10 commandments?
If you believe so, can you imagine how would it be to carry a Bible written by God himself.
If you believe in God, how would you like God to manifest himself to you so you can believe that he is God.
Would you follow all what he will instruct you and why?
How would you convince others that God manifest himself to you?
If you happen to device a way to convince others that God manifest himself to you and He had instructions that He wants us to follow. Would your ways still be effective 2000 years from now?
Post by: oweidah on Apr 09, 2016 at 06:43 PM
bakit importante sa yo ang makipagdebate?
ka tony, diba sa nba thread, asaran ang gusto nya? hmmm...
dapat sa plaza miranda o luneta cya pumunta hehe
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2016 at 07:03 PM
Hindi debate ang hanap ko. Gusto ko lang iklaro sa isang miyembro ng katoliko dito sa pdvd kung tama nga ang nabasa kong article na ipinost mo.
Totoo ba na kailangan ng isang tao ang Catholic Confirmation para siya ay maligtas?
Di ba sabi mo, totoo kang katoliko, naniniwala ka ba sa doktrina ng Roman Chatolics na transubstantiation na kung saan ang tinapay at alak ay nagiging actual na katawan at dugo ni Kristo?
hindi ka naman katoliko, bakit kailangan mong maliwanagan? lilipat ka sa katoliko?
hindi kami brainwash ng simbahan ng tulad nyo....
walang paliwanag dyan, tradition yan na hango sa last supper ni kristo sa kanyang nga desipulo...
isang pag-alaala,, magtanong ka sa isang pareng katoliko, yan din ang isasagot sa iyo.....
tapos sasabihin mo na sang-ayon sa biblia, blah, blah. blah.....
eh paano nga kung sabihan ka ni kristo na hindi sa kanya yung bibliya, paano ka na?
Post by: tony on Apr 09, 2016 at 07:03 PM
ka tony, diba sa nba thread, asaran ang gusto nya? hmmm...
dapat sa plaza miranda o luneta cya pumunta hehe
meron lang akong hinihintay na sabihin nya at hindi ko na sya gagambalain...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2016 at 07:27 PM
hindi ka naman katoliko, bakit kailangan mong maliwanagan? lilipat ka sa katoliko?
hindi kami brainwash ng simbahan ng tulad nyo....
walang paliwanag dyan, tradition yan na hango sa last supper ni kristo sa kanyang nga desipulo...
isang pag-alaala,, magtanong ka sa isang pareng katoliko, yan din ang isasagot sa iyo.....
tapos sasabihin mo na sang-ayon sa biblia, blah, blah. blah.....
eh paano nga kung sabihan ka ni kristo na hindi sa kanya yung bibliya, paano ka na?
Siya... Para di mo na ako gambalain. Ganito lang sasabihin ko kay Jesus sa tanong mong "what if":
"I was mislead, can you please guide me Jesus to your right Word."
Hindi ka naniniwala na ang tinapay at alak na hawak ng pari ay actual na katawan at dugo ni Kristo?
Paano naman iyong kailangan pa ng Catholic Confirmation ng isang tao para maligtas? Ganito ba requirement ng Roman Catholic sa mga gustong sumali sa religion nila?
So kung sakaling sasali ako sa RC kailangan ko pang dumaan sa Catholic Confirmation para maligtas? Eto ay base sa link na nipost mo.
Post by: oweidah on Apr 09, 2016 at 07:43 PM
meron lang akong hinihintay na sabihin nya at hindi ko na sya gagambalain...
born against with forked u know d old dance, twist n spin
Post by: dpogs on Apr 09, 2016 at 08:03 PM
born against with forked u know d old dance, twist n spin
Do you have any post here im religion thread that doesnt attack the poster? Or you just here to post para manggatong?
If Catholic doctines cant be found in the Bible? Saan nanggagaling ang mga tiinuturo nila?
Post by: tony on Apr 10, 2016 at 07:35 AM
i really wonder, should Jesus come back today, i am almost sure He will never recognize any religion, no, not even the RC......
why?, because organized religion runs counter to everything He started...
Jesus came to us with nothing, He left us but took nothing with him....
kaya ganun pa rin ang tanong ko, paano kung sabihan ka ni Kristo, anung bible?, hindi akin yan....
Post by: dpogs on Apr 10, 2016 at 09:09 AM
80 years after Jesus died, there was no written bible(new testament) you mean to say there were no Christians then? that Christian had to wait that long?
The Bible or the Holy Scripture is collection of book. Even before the birth of Jesus, Holy Scriptures already existed. Jesus and His disciples used the Scripture for their teachings and preachings.
Christian exists even before birth of Christ. Though they were first called Christian in Antioch.
Quote
i really wonder, should Jesus come back today, i am almost sure He will never recognize any religion, no, not even the RC......
You said it is "faith and religion". Ikaw nagsabi na kailangan ng tao ang religion para maligtas.
Yes. Religion is nothing. Kaya nga nakakapagtaka kasi ang Roman Catholics requires members to undergo Catholic Confirmation para lang maligtas. Parang pareho lang sila ng INC.
Quote
kaya ganun pa rin ang tanong ko, paano kung sabihan ka ni Kristo, anung bible?, hindi akin yan...
Nasagot ko na yan
"I was mislead, can you please guide me Jesus to your right Word."
Now, what if Jesus told you that the Bible is His very own Word, and told you that all Catholic doctrines are not His teachings and not in the Bible? Ano naman sasabihin mo?
Post by: tony on Apr 10, 2016 at 07:28 PM
Quote
Christian exists even before birth of Christ
really now, so which Christ was that?
so ganun pa rin ang tanong ko, hindi mo pa na sasagot....
Quote
Quote
kaya ganun pa rin ang tanong ko, paano kung sabihan ka ni Kristo, anung bible?, hindi akin yan...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 10, 2016 at 08:32 PM
really now, so which Christ was that?
so ganun pa rin ang tanong ko, hindi mo pa na sasagot....
Eto nga po ang sagot.
"I was mislead, can you please guide me Jesus to your right Word."
Now, what if Jesus told you that the Bible is His very own Word, and told you that all Catholic doctrines are not His teachings and not in the Bible? Ano naman sasabihin mo?
What if tayo ng what ifs... Baka gusto mo rin itanong kung what if Jesus is alien? Or what if Jesus is actually Satan? What if God the Father is actually God the Mother? What if there is no God? Is there where your faith rest - sa what if scenarios?
Lets talk about what is happening in religions today...
Based doon sa link na pinost mo, why Roman Catholic requires those protestant na gustong bumalik na dumaan sa Catholic Confirmation para sila mapunta sa langit?
Post by: tony on Apr 10, 2016 at 08:38 PM
Quote
Based doon sa link na pinost mo, why Roman Catholic requires those protestant na gustong bumalik na dumaan sa Catholic Confirmation para sila mapunta sa langit?
do you think that that is important at all? do you think the Pope will make that a big issue?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 10, 2016 at 09:11 PM
i am not like you who can parrot the bible....catholics are not heavily brainwashed like you...
do you think that that is important at all? do you think the Pope will make that a big issue?
Kung ang tingin mo sa mga taong Bible ang basehan ng kanilang faith ay mga brainwashed ako naman iba:
Sunod ng sunod lang kung ano man sabihin ng Pari at Pope. Througout time Roman Catholics are known sa pabagobago nilang doctrines and members without questions... They just follow what the church told them.For me that is the classificatiom of a member on being heavily brainwashed.
In short being brainwashed here is not the issue. The issue here is some church or religion makes salvation exclusively for their members only :( just like INC.
If you think going to heaven is not important nasa sa iyo yan. But those people willing to undergo a Catholic Confirmation just to enter Heaven that is very important to them. And galing mismo sa iyo, Pope ay walang pakialam sa spiritual status ng mga gustong sumali sa RC?
Jesus came here on earth to provide salvation for us and yet some of us here thinsk it is not important.
Jesus offers Himself for us to enter Heaven, and Roman Catholic offers "Catholic Confirmation" for us to enter Heaven. If some rc members dont think like that good for them, but those protestant willing to undergo Catholic Confirmation para lang maligtas instead of choosing Jesus as their Savior, i think RC is misleading them. Yan ay based sa nabasa kong link na nipost mo.
Post by: tony on Apr 11, 2016 at 07:45 AM
Quote
Jesus came here on earth to provide salvation for us and yet some of us here thinsk it is not important.
that is the basic tenet of our faith....kaya nga we have to be discerning and carefull.....
eh kasi kung pagbalik ni Kristo at sabihan ka, anong bible ang pinagsasasabi mo?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 11:46 AM
What if Jesus told you that the Bible is His very own Word, and told you that all Catholic doctrines are not His teachings and not in the Bible? Ano naman sasabihin mo?
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 11:59 AM
^E, di yes. Ikaw, pano kung hindi galing sa kanya?
Please backread, i already answer that... Or you may ask me "What if Jesus is not God" kung laging "what if" ang basehan ng inyong faith. You can also ask me "What if Jesus is not real?" maraming what if na tanong... Sabi mo nga eh di yes lang ng yes...
Jesus is the way to salvation, why Roman Catholics requires the protestants to undergo Catholic Confiation for them to go to heaven?
Parang Iglesia ni cristo na nagsasabing kapag di kaanib ng Iglesia di ka maliligtas.
Post by: tony on Apr 11, 2016 at 12:38 PM
the exclusivity doctrine that used be, is now no more, Lolo Kiko stands for this...
and so my question is still, what if Christ tells you, what bible?
the answer is here, in this thread, you just do not know how to read between the lines...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 12:53 PM
What if Jesus told you that the Bible is His very own Word, and told you that all Catholic doctrines are not His teachings and not in the Bible? Ano naman sasabihin mo?
the exclusivity doctrine that used be, is now no more, Lolo Kiko stands for this..
But the link you posted says otherwise...
Post by: tony on Apr 11, 2016 at 01:01 PM
look instead at what is actually happening, open your eyes,
now is not the time to argue, now is the time to save souls...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 01:09 PM
you give too much importance on anything you read.....
look instead at what is actually happening, open your eyes,
now is not the time to argue, now is the time to save souls...
Yup. And those protestant was required to undergo Catholic Confirmation to save their souls.
Post by: tony on Apr 11, 2016 at 07:17 PM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 07:36 PM
^so what if Jesus came back and ask you, what confirmation? why are making a big deal out of it...
What if na naman :( You bases your faith on a what if scenario?
What if Jesus came back and told you that the Catholic teachings is not from God? What if Jesus told us that what I am talking is right?
Why making a big deal out of it? If you know the meaning of
now is the time to save souls...
Or if you can define "save souls" then you should know why it is a big deal for me.
Post by: tony on Apr 11, 2016 at 07:37 PM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 07:42 PM
kaya nga eh....paano na?
What if Jesus came and told you that what i am saying is right?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 07:46 PM
now is the time to save souls...
Do you know the meaning of "save souls"?
Or can you please show me how to save souls?
Post by: tony on Apr 11, 2016 at 08:01 PM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 08:11 PM
cherry picking dyan kayo magaling....
First, a brainwashed ngayon naman cherry picking :) Stop attacking the poster lets have a conversation.
You said that it is time to save souls. How will you save souls?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 11, 2016 at 08:45 PM
Post by: tony on Apr 12, 2016 at 06:57 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 12, 2016 at 07:10 AM
applies to you as well...
okay then...
You said that it is time to save souls. How will you save souls?
Post by: tony on Apr 12, 2016 at 07:15 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 12, 2016 at 07:28 AM
Pabago bago kasi ang doctrine ng Catholic. Baka kasi nagbago na naman. Since you mention that we need to start saving souls, naintriga ako... How a catholic like you will save soul? Is it the same 200-300 years ago on how Catholic came here to Philippines to save souls?
Post by: tony on Apr 12, 2016 at 11:33 AM
you are again putting words in my mouth...that is no good..
your comprehension of the english language is suspect...
if you can not comprehend my post, that is fine,
just don't argue with this idiot...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 12, 2016 at 12:47 PM
now is not the time to argue, now is the time to save souls...
A brainwashed, cherry picker and an idiot... Is that how you addressed people who have different faith than you?
You mentioned "now is the time to save soul" sorry i am an idiot, can you please explain what do you mean of "now is the time to save soul"... Pagkakaintindi ko kasi is let us not argue instead let us save soul.
Kaya I ask you, how will you save souls? Or to be specific how Roman Catholic address their members' need of salvation? Siguro naman masasagot mo na. Is it the same 200-300 years ago when Catholics came here in Philippines.
Please update me, pabago bago kasi doctine ng Roman Catholic. If you search the net, catholic website states that seven sacraments must be fulfilled para makapasok sa langit. Kasali sa seven sacrament ang Confirmation pero sabi mo di naman ito importante.
Post by: barrister on Apr 12, 2016 at 01:14 PM
Catholics believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. Kaya hindi mo puwedeng sabihin na "paano kung itanggi ni Kristo ang bibliya."
Ano nga ba ang Catholic doctrine tungkol dito?
Catholics believe that the bible alone is not the sole source of spiritual truth. They believe that the sources of spritual truth are both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In other words, both the bible and apostolic tradition.
What is apostolic tradition? It refers to the teachings of the apostles which were handed down by way of apostolic succession to the bishops as successors of Peter.
Catechism:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm)
Therefore, this is the source of your disagreement: One believes in Sola Scriptura (scripture alone); the other believes in Scripture + Tradition.
Hindi niya rin puwedeng sabihin sa Katoliko na "saan mababasa sa bibliya ang ganon o ganito," kasi hindi nga naniniwala ang Katoliko sa Sola Scriptura.
Post by: tigkal on Apr 12, 2016 at 01:35 PM
At kung meron aliens dadating and explain lahat na nasa bible including the miracles, dito makita yung fanatics na hindi talaga magbago isip kahit na with evidence.
Post by: tony on Apr 12, 2016 at 07:55 PM
the p{Pope ask the church to embrace everybody, yes even atheists...
dpogs simply do not get what i am driving at....dogmas and doctrines do not hold much water to me...
i am living in a real world, so no fantasies for me works...
my impression of religious establishments, money making ventures, and with money comes power...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 12, 2016 at 11:31 PM
@barister, thank your for the welcome relief, i am what you may call a free thinking catholic,
the p{Pope ask the church to embrace everybody, yes even atheists...
dpogs simply do not get what i am driving at....dogmas and doctrines do not hold much water to me...
i am living in a real world, so no fantasies for me works...
my impression of religious establishments, money making ventures, and with money comes power...
okay then...
can you now explain what you mean of "now is the time to save souls."
Post by: tony on Apr 13, 2016 at 07:11 AM
okay then...
can you now explain what you mean of "now is the time to save souls."
read the entire post....it is all there, if you do not get it, i can not help you...
Post by: dpogs on Apr 13, 2016 at 08:37 AM
Sa tingin ko sir Tony, kung Catholic ka, dapat mag focus ka sa Catholic doctrine, re: the sources of spiritual truth.
Catholics believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. Kaya hindi mo puwedeng sabihin na "paano kung itanggi ni Kristo ang bibliya."
Ano nga ba ang Catholic doctrine tungkol dito?
Catholics believe that the bible alone is not the sole source of spiritual truth. They believe that the sources of spritual truth are both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. In other words, both the bible and apostolic tradition.
What is apostolic tradition? It refers to the teachings of the apostles which were handed down by way of apostolic succession to the bishops as successors of Peter.
Catechism:http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm)
Therefore, this is the source of your disagreement: One believes in Sola Scriptura (scripture alone); the other believes in Scripture + Tradition.
Hindi niya rin puwedeng sabihin sa Katoliko na "saan mababasa sa bibliya ang ganon o ganito," kasi hindi nga naniniwala ang Katoliko sa Sola Scriptura.
Jesus came to this world to free us from our tradition.
Post by: tony on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:08 PM
Post by: tony on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:09 PM
Jesus came to this world to free us from our tradition.
o yes, Jesus freed us from paying ikapu....
Post by: nspinner06 on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:22 PM
Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
Post by: tony on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:29 PM
Jesus taught us to love one another.
Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
yes, to me this is the single greatest lesson of all, all the others are mere icing on the cake...
kaya nga with all this "pagalingan sa debate" between religions, i can not help but think,
what if Jesus came back and tell those religious leaders, "you have not delivered my message" why did you prioritize enriching yourselves with worldly goods and ammssed power? what have you done to my flock?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:35 PM
Post by: tony on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:37 PM
but being makulit and all, i still love you brother.....
Post by: dpogs on Apr 13, 2016 at 02:42 PM
i never called you an idiot, i called myself one, ayan ka naman, why can't you read properly...?
but being makulit and all, i still love you brother.....
Thank you sir. :'( I love you too, sir.
Nothing personal, its the system i am against at not the people.
Post by: jerix on Apr 14, 2016 at 08:48 AM
Thank you sir. :'( I love you too, sir.
Oyyyyy! sarap naman!
Post by: ninjababez® on Apr 14, 2016 at 08:57 AM
Oyyyyy! sarap naman!mukhang sincere sila pareho bro :)
Post by: oweidah on Apr 14, 2016 at 09:06 AM
Post by: jerix on Apr 14, 2016 at 12:12 PM
Post by: newbie pa rin on Apr 14, 2016 at 06:52 PM
that is the basic tenet of our faith....kaya nga we have to be discerning and carefull.....
eh kasi kung pagbalik ni Kristo at sabihan ka, anong bible ang pinagsasasabi mo?
Sinong Kristo ito ung nasa bible o sa sabungan?
Post by: tony on Apr 15, 2016 at 07:40 AM
Sinong Kristo ito ung nasa bible o sa sabungan?
who knows? ikaw alam mo?
kaya ako nagtanong dahil hindi ko rin alam.... >:D
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 15, 2016 at 10:36 AM
^Eyeball na!!! sama ako :D
Game ako jan. Taga-awat tayo. Haha!
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 15, 2016 at 10:41 AM
Game ako jan. Taga-awat tayo. Haha!
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
Taga-awat o taga-score? ;D
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 15, 2016 at 10:44 AM
Taga-awat o taga-score? ;D
Flexibility is the key :D
It's actually a combination of both in successive order. Score muna then awat. ;D
Post by: dpogs on Jun 14, 2016 at 07:52 AM
Jesus Christ led the biggest, most successful and far reaching non-violent revolution
is the biggest socialist of all time....
what made you think that Jesus is the biggest socialist of all time?
for the record, Jesus never led a revolution against any government...
Post by: tony on Jun 14, 2016 at 07:43 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jun 14, 2016 at 09:49 PM
As far as Scripture is comcerned, there is no reference that He led any revolution. Spiritual? Social?
Pero kung sa tingin mo may revolution siyang nasimulan better if you can back it up.
Calling Jesus a socialist? Where on earth did you get that or you just assume that He is a socialist.
Post by: tony on Jun 15, 2016 at 06:32 AM
Jesus led a revolution like no other......he was motivated not by greed or power...
but love of fellow man....
Post by: dpogs on Jun 15, 2016 at 06:33 AM
i know Jesus is a socialist.......better get used to it....why be bothered by labels....
Jesus led a revolution like no other......he was motivated not by greed or power...
but love of fellow man....
no problem, chief. :(
Post by: tony on Jun 16, 2016 at 07:53 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 16, 2016 at 09:46 AM
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/06/13/sacramento-baptist-preacher-praises-orlando-gay-nightclub-attack/
That is wrong.
Post by: dpogs on Jun 16, 2016 at 10:45 AM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM
Post by: tony on Jun 16, 2016 at 04:48 PM
That is wrong.
your pastors, they dip their hands into your pockets.....and this is what you get in return....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 16, 2016 at 05:15 PM
The proper Christian way is to shame them into suicide.
How did you know that?
your pastors, they dip their hands into your pockets.....and this is what you get in return....
I know there's no perfect pastors around. It's good there's media to get them back to their senses.
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
Post by: dpogs on Jun 16, 2016 at 06:27 PM
The proper Christian way is to shame them into suicide.
How did you know that?
ako sigurado : the proper gay way is to shoot kill them all inside gay club and then be killed by a cop.
Post by: sirhc on Jun 17, 2016 at 09:12 AM
How did you know that?
ako sigurado : the proper gay way is to shoot kill them all inside gay club and then be killed by a cop.
Wow. Just wow.
Post by: dpogs on Jun 17, 2016 at 12:23 PM
Wow. Just wow.
Yup. Ganyan ang ginawa ng isang gay sa pagkakaalam ko. You may search it all over the net. The biggest shooting disaster sa history ng US. That is how they do it - not "Christian way" but "gay way".
If you apply KW argument :) :)
Post by: barrister on Jun 18, 2016 at 10:51 AM
male classmate, was a regular at gay bars including Pulse for the past
decade, and used hookup apps like Grindr to meet men
By Chris Spargo For Dailymail.com and James Wilkinson For Dailymail.com and Matt Hunter For Mailonline
Published: 23:11 GMT, 13 June 2016 | Updated: 12:38 GMT, 16 June 2016
... 'He's a homosexual and he was trying to pick up men,' said Jim Van Horn, who called Mateen a Pulse 'regular' and described his approach to chatting with people in the club.
'He would walk up to them and put his arm around them or something and maybe try to get them to dance a little bit or something and go over and buy them a drink.'
Mateen's first wife, Sitora Yusufiy, 27, also said that his own father once called him gay in front of her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639961/Orlando-terrorist-went-gay-club-Pulse-dozen-times-got-drunk-belligerent-talked-wife-kid-massacring-49-people-there.html
Orlando Shooter's Wife: The FBI Told Me Not to Tell the Media He Was Gay
In an interview with Brazilian TV, the ex-wife of Omar Mateen claimed the U.S. agency told her to keep quiet
about his homosexuality.
TeleSur
June 16, 2016
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation told the former wife of the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen, Sitora Yusufiy, not to speak of his homosexuality or the fact that she, his family and others believed he was gay, Yusufiy’s current fiance, Marco Dias, told a Brazilian TV channel in an interview.
http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/fbi-told-orlando-shooters-wife-not-tell-us-media-he-was-gay
Omar Mateen on Dating Apps
Penis Pics to Guys
Also Scoping Out Women
6/15/2016 1:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF
http://www.tmz.com/2016/06/15/omar-mateen-gay-dating-apps-fbi/
Post by: dpogs on Jun 18, 2016 at 11:06 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jun 18, 2016 at 12:05 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 18, 2016 at 12:11 PM
Kaya pala tahimik ang isa dyan... Kabaro pala kasi.
Ano naman ang kinalaman ng pagiging gay dun sa mass shooting?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 18, 2016 at 05:14 PM
Kaya pala tahimik ang isa dyan... Kabaro pala kasi.
Ano naman ang kinalaman ng pagiging gay dun sa mass shooting?
I think what dpogs meant was walang kinalaman ang pagiging gay dun sa mass shooting but instead, he was citing that KW was not reacting or giving his comments on the mass shooting because the perpetrator was also a gay.
Ako naman, i find it odd na hindi nagreact ang LGBT community against the muslims the same way as they reacted against christians when the equal rights for marriage was being put into law.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 18, 2016 at 06:44 PM
Also, wala rin naman kinalaman pagiging muslim dun sa mass shooting. We should stop this phobia. Kaya ang gulo gulo ng mundo e.
Post by: tony on Jun 18, 2016 at 06:51 PM
I think what dpogs meant was walang kinalaman ang pagiging gay dun sa mass shooting but instead, he was citing that KW was not reacting or giving his comments on the mass shooting because the perpetrator was also a gay.
Ako naman, i find it odd na hindi nagreact ang LGBT community against the muslims the same way as they reacted against christians when the equal rights for marriage was being put into law.
ISIS wants a war between muslims and christians and jews....
ISIS is not muslim, just as the Klu klux clan is not christian, we do not call then christian extremists...
so that we do not also call ISIS muslim extremists...they are hooligans plain and simple..
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 18, 2016 at 10:09 PM
Baka kasi iniisip ni kw na isa lang naman patutunguhan ng usapan kung mag react pa sya. I must admit, ganun din iniisip ko. Title pa lang ng articles ganun na sinasuggest.
Also, wala rin naman kinalaman pagiging muslim dun sa mass shooting. We should stop this phobia. Kaya ang gulo gulo ng mundo e.
To a certain extend meron pa din kinalaman. Ang hirap ng dilemna ng shooter. Imagine belonging to a religion where for them, being gay is punishable by death. You can just think kung gaano kagulo ang isipan ng shooter. I sympathize with him with regards to his dilemna. But then what I am saying is just an opinion or speculation. I should have probably stated that in the first place.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 20, 2016 at 06:41 AM
To a certain extend meron pa din kinalaman. Ang hirap ng dilemna ng shooter. Imagine belonging to a religion where for them, being gay is punishable by death. You can just think kung gaano kagulo ang isipan ng shooter. I sympathize with him with regards to his dilemna. But then what I am saying is just an opinion or speculation. I should have probably stated that in the first place.
He IS a US citizen. I don't think the US will let his religion execute him for being gay, will it? He is mentally disturbed. And the homophobic and extremists are banking on this to spread hate.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 20, 2016 at 06:50 AM
He IS a US citizen. I don't think the US will let his religion execute him for being gay, will it? He is mentally disturbed. And the homophobic and extremists are banking on this to spread hate.
Yes sir. I'm sure the US would not allowed that. I just said that he belongs to that religion. I agree that he is mentally disturbed. Ano kaya ang cause nun?
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 20, 2016 at 07:07 AM
Yes sir. I'm sure the US would not allowed that. I just said that he belongs to that religion. I agree that he is mentally disturbed. Ano kaya ang cause nun?
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
I don't know. But I don't think he's the only gay Muslim US citizen out there.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 20, 2016 at 11:47 AM
He IS a US citizen. I don't think the US will let his religion execute him for being gay, will it? He is mentally disturbed. And the homophobic and extremists are banking on this to spread hate.
Yes sir. I'm sure the US would not allowed that. I just said that he belongs to that religion. I agree that he is mentally disturbed. Ano kaya ang cause nun?
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
I don't know. But I don't think he's the only gay Muslim US citizen out there.
So you are proposing that:
Gay, muslim, killing is not related sa incident. Then why was it cited in the report? So basta na lang mental disorder for no reason? But I also agree with you that he is not the only gay Muslim out there. And hindi lang gay muslim ang ONLY reason.
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 20, 2016 at 01:27 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jun 20, 2016 at 01:34 PM
It will be different if the killer is heterosexual and a non-muslim.
Post by: tony on Jun 21, 2016 at 07:58 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 21, 2016 at 02:28 PM
I'm saying we shouldn't conclude that being gay and Muslim made him kill. The articles are clearly biased, and seemingly have an agenda other than reporting facts.
I agree with you. Again that was just my personal analysis. And definitely may mental disorder nga talaga. Let's just wait yun mga next report sa kanilang investigation with hopes that maayos nila ang agenda nila.
;)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 21, 2016 at 02:32 PM
Well... Isa lang malinaw dito... LGBT community is so silent knowing that the killer was gay and/or muslim.
It will be different if the killer is heterosexual and a non-muslim.
That is what puzzles me. This for me is very critical kasi may may death involved whereas yun dating resolved issues ng LGBT community sa US is hindi naman about death but more on civil rights. I guess siguro they are still waiting for the findings ng investigation.
Post by: bumblebee on Jun 21, 2016 at 02:43 PM
Post by: DVD_Freak on Jun 21, 2016 at 02:50 PM
Had the killer been straight and Christian, and someone ask you to react as a straight and as a Christian, how would you? Would you even?
Don't we do that all the time?
Post by: dpogs on Jun 21, 2016 at 06:07 PM
(https://scontent.fmnl3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/13419016_1714933028594393_7989448170064923707_n.jpg?oh=975a2644bf7811b6c03a28554bbc1fd6&oe=57DC995C)
Media and most probably majority of people will just call Jesus a false teacher from squatter area milking money from both poor and rich. Politician will just ignore Him or use His popularity but will never call Him capitalist or socialist.
Jesus purpose is spiritual in nature... I dont see any reason to associate Jesus in politics or any form of social or economics systems...
PS: Jesus heals and feed both rich and poor.
Post by: dpogs on Jun 21, 2016 at 06:13 PM
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
Taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Wala akong nakikitang poor diyan. Ang nakikita ko is collective or cooperative ownership. That means not only the poor but the whole people rich or poor.
Post by: oweidah on Jun 21, 2016 at 06:30 PM
Had the killer been straight and Christian, and someone ask you to react as a straight and as a Christian, how would you? Would you even?
esp ultra rightist christian whiteboy....
Post by: tony on Jun 21, 2016 at 07:28 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 21, 2016 at 10:05 PM
Bakit kaya, no?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 21, 2016 at 11:48 PM
(https://scontent.fmnl3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13423828_1617127581948996_3340855755584310779_n.jpg?oh=0651e4bae75b40f4adbe8bcc98fe10e8&oe=57C37817)
Bakit kaya, no?
Do you even know what countries those are?
Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk 4
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jun 22, 2016 at 01:06 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jun 22, 2016 at 01:16 AM
What does that have to do with anything? My question was that the overlap of most peaceful/least religious is very significant. We were always taught that we cannot be good without God but a lot of the most violent countries are also the most religious. Dito sa Pilipinas, maraming mga religious dito pero mataas pa rin ang crime rate.
Your question doesn't support your picture.
Post by: rascal101 on Jun 22, 2016 at 01:20 AM
Ang relihiyon nasa tao iyun. Hindi ibig sabihin na sumumpa ka harapan ng pari o tao na susunod ka sa mga utos ng Diyos eh ganun na nga ang gagawin mo sa bawat kilos mo. Kung iyung mga disipolo nga ni Hesus ay laging nagkakasala kahit noong kasama siya paano pa ngayon kung saan hindi natin kasama o nakikita ang Panginoong Hesus.
Post by: dpogs on Jun 22, 2016 at 02:04 AM
What does that have to do with anything? My question was that the overlap of most peaceful/least religious is very significant. We were always taught that we cannot be good without God but a lot of the most violent countries are also the most religious. Dito sa Pilipinas, maraming mga religious dito pero mataas pa rin ang crime rate.
"Being religious/good" and "being with God" is not the same. You can be religious all the time but God is not with you. Vice versa, you may not be religious but God is with you.
You can be "very good" but God is not with you. But expect goodness from a true/genuine God believer.
Nagtataka ka bakit maraming religious ditto sa atin pero mataas ang crime rate? Maybe the answer is majority of Filipinos are not true/genuine Christian or believer of God "they're just being religious but God is not with them".
Do not equate "being religious" to "being with God".
Post by: oweidah on Jun 22, 2016 at 03:34 AM
no tolerance
u r doomed to hell, kami lang goto heben
Post by: rascal101 on Jun 22, 2016 at 05:15 AM
Post by: oweidah on Jun 22, 2016 at 05:30 AM
un sa iyo sa muslim sa hudyo katoliko inc christian protestant atbp
alam na kasunod, bangayan away giyera
Post by: tony on Jun 22, 2016 at 06:21 AM
May kapatawaran sa totoong relihiyon pero hindi lagi na lang pinapatawad dahil may hangganan lahat.
my God is a God of Life and endless mercy....
Post by: dpogs on Jun 22, 2016 at 06:30 AM
my God is a God of Life and endless mercy....
no one owns Jesus Christ exclusively...
akala ko po ba walang nagmamayari kay Jesus... bakit niyo po sinabing "My God" - ang aking Diyos :)
are you sure your God is a God of Life and endless mercy not a socialist? or kasama na ang pagiging socialist?
Your God is a God of life and endless mercy and a socialist.
Post by: tony on Jun 22, 2016 at 06:38 AM
akala ko po ba walang nagmamayari kay Jesus... bakit niyo po sinabing "My God" - ang aking Diyos :)
are you sure your God is a God of Life and endless mercy not a socialist? or kasama na ang pagiging socialist?
Your God is a God of life and endless mercy and a socialist.
you and your hang-ups....
Post by: DVD_Freak on Jun 22, 2016 at 07:45 AM
What does that have to do with anything? My question was that the overlap of most peaceful/least religious is very significant. We were always taught that we cannot be good without God but a lot of the most violent countries are also the most religious. Dito sa Pilipinas, maraming mga religious dito pero mataas pa rin ang crime rate.
Because you have to identify which countries are these to make a better argument. Two of those countries (Canada & Australia) represent the biggest red blotches there. Just take those 2 countries out and you are left with probably only a quarter....and even less countries in common.
Top 10 Most Peaceful
1. Iceland
2. Denmark
3. Austria
4. New Zealand
5. Switzerland
6. Finland
7. Canada
8. Japan
9. Australia
10. Czech Republic
Top 10 Least Religious
1. Australia
2. Sweden
3. Germany
4. Netherlands
5. New Zealand
6. Luxemburg
7. Denmark
8. Canada
9. France
10 Austria
From that list, you go 5 out of 10. So it can go either way. Hardly definitive proof right? To get a direct correlation you should go at least 8?
Post by: newbie pa rin on Jun 22, 2016 at 06:13 PM
my God is a God of Life and endless mercy....
Just curious, when you said endless mercy what do you mean by that?
Can you site a reference for your answer or it was just your opinion?
Post by: tony on Jun 22, 2016 at 07:57 PM
Just curious, when you said endless mercy what do you mean by that?
Can you site a reference for your answer or it was just your opinion?
yung dalawang kriminal na nakaagapay sa krus, isang kalimbawa...
Post by: newbie pa rin on Jun 25, 2016 at 07:21 PM
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
(Luke 23:42-43 KJV)
Or this, Jesus asked God to forgive them even if they did not repent
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
(Luke 23:34 KJV)
Post by: tony on Jun 25, 2016 at 07:54 PM
Post by: newbie pa rin on Jun 26, 2016 at 10:40 PM
25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
(Prv 16:25 KJV)
Post by: jerix on Jul 11, 2016 at 08:17 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 11, 2016 at 11:49 PM
Ask ko lang, was there an official turn over of the scriptures we are using now, or they were just found by somebody somehow, somewhere and propagated that?
From Wiki:
Quote
According to the dominant theory called Greek primacy, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, of which 5,650 handwritten copies have survived in Greek, over 10,000 in Latin. When other languages are included, the total of ancient copies approaches 25,000. The next ancient text to come close to rivaling that number is Homer's Iliad, which is thought to have survived in 643 ancient copies.[9] Recognizing this, F. E. Peters remarked that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that make up the Christians' New Testament texts were the most frequently copied and widely circulated [surviving] books of antiquity".[this quote needs a citation] (This may be due to their preservation, popularity, and distribution brought about by the ease of seaborne travel and the many roads constructed during the time of the Roman Empire). When a comparison is made between the seven major critical editions of the Greek NT verse-by-verse – namely Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland – 62.9% of verses are variant free.[10]
A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was first asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180.[11] The many other gospels that then existed were eventually deemed non-canonical (see Biblical canon) and suppressed. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[12] and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[13] The Council of Rome in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I issued an identical canon,[12] and his decision to commission the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[14] See Development of the New Testament canon for details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Manuscripts_and_canons
Post by: odyopayl on Jul 14, 2016 at 06:34 AM
By definition "It is Accepting the Truth of Something Unseen thru the Words of someone Whom we put our Trust"
Post by: dpogs on Aug 19, 2016 at 04:22 PM
For me, if you say you're a Christian and yet you are cheering these killings of drug addicts and drug pushers, you are a hypocrite and you shouldn't call yourself a Christian because Jesus preached forgiveness and spoke out against the death penalty and self-righteousness. Jesus Himself would be condemning these killings.
Tsk. Next time dont use the Bible to support your personal belief. Jesus never oppose death penalty. He never spoke out against death penalty.
You will never find in the Bible indicating that Jesus opposes death penalty or spoke out against death penalty.
Jesus was sentenced to death - a death penalty. Did he oppose it? He submitted Himself to authority. God commanded His people to submit to all authority - any form of government and its laws and regulations and penalties.
Post by: tony on Aug 19, 2016 at 05:47 PM
Quote
Next time dont use the Bible to support your personal belief
yes, after all when Jesus returns and asks you, what bible? then you are screwed....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 21, 2016 at 10:15 AM
yes, after all when Jesus returns and asks you, what bible? then you are screwed....
Good question sir. What if Jesus asked you naman today, I want you to follow and know me better. What will you do?
Post by: tony on Aug 21, 2016 at 01:27 PM
Good question sir. What if Jesus asked you naman today, I want you to follow and know me better. What will you do?
of course i will...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 21, 2016 at 01:32 PM
of course i will...
Ayos sir. Then what if ang next question is how will you know me better?
Post by: tony on Aug 21, 2016 at 07:47 PM
Ayos sir. Then what if ang next question is how will you know me better?
not interested to know you better....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 21, 2016 at 08:54 PM
Ayos sir. Then what if ang next question is how will you know me better?
not interested to know you better....
Haha! Sorry sir mali ang question ko. My question is suppose to be:
What if Jesus asked you how will you come know me?
Post by: bartender on Aug 21, 2016 at 09:02 PM
Haha! Sorry sir mali ang question ko. My question is suppose to be:
What if Jesus asked you how will you come know me?
I can feel you in my heart , in my being.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM
I can feel you in my heart , in my being.
Next question naman sir, how will you know what I want?
Post by: bartender on Aug 21, 2016 at 10:04 PM
Sent from nowhere
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 21, 2016 at 10:08 PM
You speak to me through my conscience.
Sent from nowhere
It's possible. However, pwede din naman ang devil mag-speak sa conscience di ba? Or pwede din yun knowledge natin of the government law.
Post by: bartender on Aug 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM
Sent from nowhere
Post by: dpogs on Aug 21, 2016 at 10:26 PM
I can feel you in my heart , in my being.How do you know I (Jesus) am the one you're feeling in your heart?
You speak to me through my conscience.How do you know that I (Jesus) am the one speaking in your conscience? Are you sure it is Me (Jesus) not Satan?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 21, 2016 at 11:45 PM
Kung devil ang and nasa conscience mo, matagal na sya ang kausap mo. The conscience is the last resort for any being to determine right from wrong. The law or any other knowledge will be through the brain primarily.
Sent from nowhere
What about Hitler and Pol Pot? May conscience naman sila. He determined that his actions and decisions was right. Though I agree naman sa iyo that conscience is one aspect sir.
Post by: tony on Aug 22, 2016 at 06:32 AM
Haha! Sorry sir mali ang question ko. My question is suppose to be:
What if Jesus asked you how will you come know me?
i will cross the bridge when i get there, nothing is kept secret for Him.....
Post by: tony on Aug 22, 2016 at 06:34 AM
How do you know I (Jesus) am the one you're feeling in your heart?
How do you know that I (Jesus) am the one speaking in your conscience? Are you sure it is Me (Jesus) not Satan?
you won't until you are face to face with Him....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 22, 2016 at 07:39 AM
Haha! Sorry sir mali ang question ko. My question is suppose to be:
What if Jesus asked you how will you come know me?
i will cross the bridge when i get there, nothing is kept secret for Him.....
Thanks for the answers sir. I know na where your coming from. I just hope that someday, when you get to know Jesus, you can share it with others as well.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 07:46 AM
Jesus was sentenced to death - a death penalty. Did he oppose it? He submitted Himself to authority. God commanded His people to submit to all authority - any form of government and its laws and regulations and penalties.
Me choice ba sya? Hindi ba't "it was written"?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 09:08 AM
Me choice ba sya? Hindi ba't "it was written"?
He have always a choice. He is God. He can do everything but He chooses to be lower than angels, equal to man, submitted to government authority and He never spoke against death penalty.
Even the rest of His disciples never spoke against death penalty.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 09:18 AM
He have always a choice. He is God. He can do everything but He chooses to be lower than angels, equal to man, submitted to government authority and He never spoke against death penalty.
Even the rest of His disciples never spoke against death penalty.
That is because it was written.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 09:38 AM
That is because it was written.
Yup. Because God decided/chose to do it.
Post by: jerix on Aug 22, 2016 at 09:40 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 09:41 AM
Yup. Because God decided/chose to do it.
Can he "un-choose"?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 10:32 AM
Can he "un-choose"?
Yes
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 10:38 AM
Yes
What's already written?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 10:50 AM
What's already written?
“…declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure … What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do” (Isaiah 46:10-11)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 10:51 AM
Pano yung Sodom and Gomorrah? Binigyan pa ng chance?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:00 AM
So no?
Pano yung Sodom and Gomorrah? Binigyan pa ng chance?
He gave everyone of us a chance. Not only Sodom and Gomorra.
God's plan is to punish evil and to forgive those who repent. He is about to destroy sodom and He is ready to forgive those who repent.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:05 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:24 AM
But to to you, he's all knowing? Meaning he knows everything, past, present, future. Or was it someone else?
What is your point?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:27 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:36 AM
Kasi sabi mo, he can "unchoose". Was there anything he "unchose"? If there was, did he know beforehand he will "unchoose"?
Your point is?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:41 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:43 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM
My point is Jesus never spoke against death penalty.
I get that part. Kaso sinabi mo pang he chose not to, kaya ko na tanong kung meron ba syang choice e yun naman talaga yung nasusulat.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:46 AM
Our neighbor's cat scampered for its safety with its tail between its legs and "takot na takot" when I caught him stealing fish at home. He probably knew what is right and wrong through his Instinct. Maybe human beings have that instinct too to know basics of what is right or wrong. But this changes when self-interest or greed comes in the way.
I think sir maski sa gubat mangyari yan, the cat will still scamper to safety in the presence of someone or something that the cat deems as a threat. I think that's the logic of the cat's instinct. However, I think that will not happen kung tiger ang nakapasok sa loob ng house niyo. The tiger will still consider you as a threat pero iba ang reaction.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 22, 2016 at 11:57 AM
I'm not making a point. Yet. Iniintindi ko muna sinasabi mo.
I believe in omniscient, omnipresent, all knowing powerful God.
And it is also clear in the Bible that Jesus never spoke against death penalty. He even recognize the government s authority on death penalty.
One thing separate human to animals is our free will same as God. God always have a choice. He have a choice to declare war to Pilates but He did not because that is not the plan on the first place. He have a choice not to be put to death but that is not the will of God the Father so instead He choose to obey God s will.
He have the power to unchoose but He did not choose to exercise it since it is not according to God s will.
Post by: tony on Aug 22, 2016 at 12:26 PM
Thanks for the answers sir. I know na where your coming from. I just hope that someday, when you get to know Jesus, you can share it with others as well.
it is a personal thing....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 22, 2016 at 04:59 PM
I get that part. Kaso sinabi mo pang he chose not to, kaya ko na tanong kung meron ba syang choice e yun naman talaga yung nasusulat.
Sir subukan kong gumamit ng analogy to better explain it.
If ever isa sa mga anak natin were convicted of a crime and ang punishment is death, and we were given a chance to take his place, although we have the option not to take his place, ako as a parent will gladly take his place to give my child a chance in life. I would take his place out of the unconditional love for my convicted child.
Sir it may not be a perfect analogy however it is one example of our creator 's unconditional love for us.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 22, 2016 at 07:08 PM
Sir subukan kong gumamit ng analogy to better explain it.
If ever isa sa mga anak natin were convicted of a crime and ang punishment is death, and we were given a chance to take his place, although we have the option not to take his place, ako as a parent will gladly take his place to give my child a chance in life. I would take his place out of the unconditional love for my convicted child.
Sir it may not be a perfect analogy however it is one example of our creator 's unconditional love for us.
I get the unconditional love part. What I don't get is why people say god isn't against death penalty just because he didn't say anything about it. Hindi bat magdiriwang ang buong kalangitan para lang sa isang magbabagong buhay? Pano ka magbabagong buhay kung pinatay ka na?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 22, 2016 at 08:54 PM
I get the unconditional love part. What I don't get is why people say god isn't against death penalty just because he didn't say anything about it. Hindi bat magdiriwang ang buong kalangitan para lang sa isang magbabagong buhay? Pano ka magbabagong buhay kung pinatay ka na?
You are right. There is no hope kung patay ka na. Well The nearest na pwede natin gamitin from the bible (only to those who believes in the authority of the bible):
1 Peter 2:13-17New International Version (NIV)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
Sa old testament may mga nangyari din na the leader was commanded to go to war. Siguro naman when an army goes to war, there will definitely be deaths. It is not death penalty per se pero kinda similar. I may be wrong too.
Disclaimer:
This verse doesn't apply to those extra judiciary killings. Baka ma-misquote naman ako. Hehe!
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 23, 2016 at 06:34 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 06:46 AM
Jesus recognizes the law of the the land. We should all abide by it. Pero hindi ibig sabihin nun, agree na sya sa death penalty. Pero andun na yung law e. Besides, he didn't came down here to mess with politics.
God (Jesus) is the One who instituted capital punishment.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 23, 2016 at 06:48 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 06:56 AM
Really? How? Then he is contradicting himself.
In what way God contradicted Himself when He instituted capital punishment?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 23, 2016 at 07:06 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 07:25 AM
First, tell me how he instituted capital punishment and then I'll answer your question.
Right after the great flood God spoke to Noah and commanded the following:
Genesis 9:5-6
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 07:29 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 23, 2016 at 07:41 AM
To answer your question,
Hindi bat magdiriwang ang buong kalangitan para lang sa isang magbabagong buhay? Pano ka magbabagong buhay kung pinatay ka na?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 08:06 AM
That's it? From Genesis pa? Wala ka bang bagu-bago?
Yup. Ganoon na katagal ang death penalty. Since Noah pa yan.
Quote
Ni hindi si Jesus nagsabi nyan e.
John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God.
John 1:14
14 And the Word (Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus even created the heaven and earth. Jesus is God.
Quote
To answer your question,
Hindi bat magdiriwang ang buong kalangitan para lang sa isang magbabagong buhay? Pano ka magbabagong buhay kung pinatay ka na?
You quote Luke 15:7
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
it says "one sinner that repenteth"... siguro naman pareho tayong agree na "repentance" is not equivalence to "pagbabagong buhay"
ex. man on the cross - the moment "man on the cross" repenteth (angels in heaven now rejoicing) Jesus forgave him (period). Did Jesus ask the "man on the cross" to change his ways (magbagong buhay)?
also do not forget that God is also a Judge. God requires death for all sinners even though they repenteth God requires death as punishment for their sin.
God forgive those who repent (angel rejoice in heaven) but they must face the consequence of their sin - death.
Angels rejoicing in heaven for one sinner that repenteth doesn't show that God contradict Himself when He instituted death as capital punishment.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 23, 2016 at 08:27 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 08:47 AM
Repentance does mean pagbabagong buhay. Baka naco-confuse mo repentance sa asking for forgiveness, which the other guy on the cross asked since hindi na sya pwedeng makapagbagong buhay.
so you mean the angels are not rejoicing in heaven over that man on the cross kasi hindi na siya puwedeng makapagbagong buhay?
repentance is different from "change of life o pagbabagong buhay"
"repent" or "repentance" is the state of mind, change of mind ... true repentance will result to "change of action - pagbabagong buhay".
prove me you that you have truly change your mind (repentance) by changing your life for good (pagbabagong buhay).
repentance - state of mind
pagbabagong buhay - results of true repentance
angels rejoice when one sinner repent (change his mind in regard of Jesus Christ) such as the case of the thief on the cross. He repented and even accepted that his actions are worthy of death (change of mind) whereas the other man on the cross still wants to save himself from death.
if given a chance that the man on the cross lived after he repented then he will have a change life (pagbabagong buhay)... ang dalawang kasama sa cross ni Jesus ay parehong binigyan ng pagkakataong mag repent pero isa lang ang nagrepent but then both of them must face the just judgement due to their crimes - death.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 23, 2016 at 08:57 AM
And by the way, that Genesis verse, it shows how valuable life is, how despicable murder is. It says God will require blood for blood but didn't say that man should do the penalty. So you're actually pushing it by saying God instituted death penalty.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 09:26 AM
You're putting words on my mouth and quite honestly, complicating things.
And by the way, that Genesis verse, it shows how valuable life is, how despicable murder is.
True, life is so valuable each of us created in the image of God, that is why God instituted death penalty. A just judgment for whoever took a very valuable life. A just judgment for whoever took a life created in the image of God.
Quote
It says God will require blood for blood but didn't say that man should do the penalty. So you're actually pushing it by saying God instituted death penalty.
... by man (sa pamamagitan ng tao) shall his blood be shed ...
dumami pa nga ang mga klase ng kasalanan ng worthy of death, hindi lang murder, habang tumagal sa panahon ni moses hanggang sa new testament...
actually, even Jesus quoted the old testament law na ang sinumang magmura sa mga magulay ay may parusang kamatayan. Jesus also said that He came in this world to fulfill the law.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 23, 2016 at 11:29 AM
And it is also clear in the Bible that Jesus never spoke against death penalty.
Another thing that Jesus never spoke against: HOMOSEXUALITY.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 12:54 PM
Another thing that Jesus never spoke against: HOMOSEXUALITY.
Yes. He never spoke "against" homosexuality. Actually He "condems" it homosexuality.
God (Jesus) said that the penalty for homosexuality is death (death penalty).
Jesus was so against. He may not said it directly during His stay on earth but during old testament He said that whoever commited homosexuality should be put to death.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 23, 2016 at 03:24 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 06:10 PM
In that same book, whoever touches the body of a dead animal, whoever eats shellfish, whoever works on a Sabbath day and whoever wears clothes of two different fabrics should ALL be put to death.
Please know the difference of the following before you mention that argument (again)
1. Ceremonial law
2. Judicial/Israel/Civil law
3. Mosaic law
4. Moral law
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 23, 2016 at 06:36 PM
Please know the difference of the following before you mention that argument (again)
1. Ceremonial law
2. Judicial/Israel/Civil law
3. Mosaic law
4. Moral law
And you get to pick and choose which law you want to follow in order to justify your hatred of homosexuals in order to feel morally superior to them. Okay.
I guess it's okay to keep slaves na din, no?
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 23, 2016 at 06:56 PM
In that same book, whoever touches the body of a dead animal, whoever eats shellfish, whoever works on a Sabbath day and whoever wears clothes of two different fabrics should ALL be put to death.
I believe na-discuss na ito Klaus. Ilang beses na rin. I thought it was settled. To refresh at least sa two different fabrics.......
The Bible explicitly says can't wear clothes with two different fabrics. That means if you wear a cotton shirt and denim pants, you are committing a sin.Hindi naman ganun ang ibig sabihin nun. The prohibition was intended during ancient Israel times where basically only wool and linen were used. Wala pa naman denim and cotton noon. One reason for the prohibition would most likely to maintain a distance between the high priest who was God's representative and the common people. Because the high priest wore both wool and linen. So bawal yun common folk. Common sense na lang. Papano mo ipagbabawal ang hindi pa naiimbento? Meron pa bang wool and linen today? Pwede ka naman magsuot ng any combination from polyester, nylon, cotton and denim. Ok lang yun. ;D
That's correct.
In ancient Israel, only the ephod of the high priest was woven of linen and wool. Everyone else was prohibited from having that kind of material.
The prohibition was ceremonial in nature, not moral. It was applicable to ancient Israel; it does not apply to Christians.
Manipis talaga ang unawa sa bibliya nito, ayaw pang aminin... :D
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,201152.msg2295774/topicseen.html#quickreply
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 23, 2016 at 07:15 PM
Anyone can interpret the Bible any way they want to which is why I think it's dangerous and stupid to use it as your sole arbiter of morality. They're ancient texts which come from an oral tradition that's been passed on and translated and re-translated in various languages over the course of thousands of years. Plus the books in the Bible are picked and chosen by a group of MEN who chose them for their own personal agendas. They in turn pass it on to other men who interpret the Bible through the lens of their own personal biases and their own personal agendas.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 08:11 PM
And you get to pick and choose which law you want to follow in order to justify your hatred of homosexuals in order to feel morally superior to them. Okay.
I guess it's okay to keep slaves na din, no?
What you have mentioned above they dont belong under the category of "moral law". Moral law doesnt change. What is morally wrong before still morally wrong today.
Take note. Homosexuality were practice not by homosexuals only. Eto ay ginagawa ng kung sino man mapa hetero o homo man siya. This is not the issue of hating homosexuals. This is the issue of homosexuality. If youre heterosexual and practice homosexuality then youre as guilty as those homosexual practicing homosexuality.
Why keep on insisting the concept of "hate" eh malinaw dito kung sino sa atin ang may galit. You are known to have grudges extremely hatred to heterosexuals lalo na sa mga tatay.
Slave? First, what type of slavery youre talking about? Kung slavery tulad ng nakikita mo sa mga movies - against their will, maltrating them physcially and mentally then it is not okay for you to keep slaves.
Learn first the history of slavery (origin, diff type of slavery, etc) before you brought up (again) the issue of if its okay to keep slaves. And please kung anuman ang iyong nakikita sa mga movie na slavery hindi lang yan ang tanging klase ng slavery sa history ng mundo.
And to answer your question: if someone approach me and voluntarily want to be my "slaves" in exchange of food and shelter for him/her to continue to live why not. If its the only way to keep them alive and well.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 23, 2016 at 09:57 PM
Oh, b.s.
1. Anyone can interpret the Bible any way they want to
2. which is why I think it's dangerous and stupid to use it
3. as your sole arbiter of morality.
4. They're ancient texts which come from an oral tradition that's been passed on and translated and re-translated in various languages over the course of thousands of years.
5. Plus the books in the Bible are picked and chosen by a group of MEN
6. who chose them for their own personal agendas. They in turn pass it on to other men who interpret the Bible through the lens of their own personal biases and their own personal agendas.
1. There are methods in interpreting the bible. Maybe the reason why you say that
Quote
interpret the Bible any way they want tois becuase a lot of people find value in the wisdom. Example, when you quoted in the other thread that you are more Christ like than most of the people here, don't you think you personally find value in being Christ like?
2. Being Christ like (in the bible) while saying that the bible is dangerous and stupid is contradicting. Unless you also accept that you are , in your own words "stupid" too.
3. So if I may ask you, what is your sole basis of morality?
4. It was written by scribes.
5. Yes it was chosen by a group of men. Same goes with all the constitutions of the government which the constituents respect and uphold. Most of the people who wrote the constitution are well versed and educated men whose expertise are most often unquestionable.
6. If it was for their own personal agendas, they would have changed the words. Example, from slavery to workers. Then you wouldn't have issues with that. However, the translators' interpretation/translation from hebrew, greek & aramaic to english or whatever language are so concise that it wouldn't change the whole concept/idea of the bible.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 23, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Quoting what Jesus said
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”
And then declares that Jesus spoke against death penalty using that quote. Yan ang malinaw na paggamit ng Bible for his own personal agenda.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Aug 25, 2016 at 10:19 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 22, 2016 at 11:35 AM
sorry, I did not follow...
Christian = Catholics, Protestants, INC, Aglipays, Mormons, etc.
Non-Christians = Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
Believing in God/Jesus Christ as God doesnt mean youre already a Christian...
Satan also believe in God...
Dont associate the word "Christian" to any person believing in God/Jesus Christ because Satan also believe in God/Jesus and Satan is not a Christian.
PS. Using your definition of christian please include INC as non-christian... Why call them chrisitan eh Jesus Christ for therm is just only a human never a God.
Post by: tony on Oct 22, 2016 at 11:53 AM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 22, 2016 at 12:27 PM
eh paano nga kung sa pagbabalik no Kristo, itatwa kayong lahat? sino kayo? di ko kayo kilala.....paano na?
That is why faith is needed for this kind of question.
Post by: tony on Oct 22, 2016 at 12:40 PM
That is why faith is needed for this kind of question.
kaya nga eh, paano kung sabihan ka ni Kristo, nauhaw ako pero hindi mo ako pinansin?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 22, 2016 at 12:41 PM
eh paano nga kung sa pagbabalik no Kristo, itatwa kayong lahat? sino kayo? di ko kayo kilala.....paano na?
To quote you dati:
"It's a personal thing." hehe!
You have a point. What if ikaw naman ang itatwa?
Post by: tony on Oct 22, 2016 at 12:43 PM
To quote you dati:
"It's a personal thing." hehe!
You have a point. What if ikaw naman ang itatwa?
eh di tanggapin....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 22, 2016 at 12:51 PM
eh di tanggapin....
Oo nga naman. As if we all have a choice.
Post by: tony on Oct 22, 2016 at 12:53 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 28, 2016 at 02:16 AM
Naniniwala ako na "God's Power" ang dapat na manaig kesa sa "People's Power". if God put Du30 in power then we must believe that only God can bring Du30 down. Bakit ako sasali sa mga movement o rally na magpapalis sa puwesto ng kung sinumang nakaupong pinuno ng bansa? That only show that I don't have faith and trust in God's power to "remove kings"* and why He "setteth up kings"*.
*Dan.2
Post by: dpogs on Nov 04, 2016 at 12:29 AM
Yung governing authorities noon Roman Empire and we know iba yung belief system nila and yet Paul send that message to the believers.
Anyhow kung kinausap ng Diyos si Duterte inde naman katakataka yun...
Yup. Because God commanded all His believers to submit to those who are in authority. But nowhere in the Bible you can find the phrase or with the same meaning of "For the one in authority is God's servant."
Satan is in authority over this world power and kingdoms. So Satan is God's servant if we follow your definition?
Post by: pTrader on Nov 04, 2016 at 12:42 AM
Yup. Because God commanded all His believers to submit to those who are in authority. But nowhere in the Bible you can find the phrase or with the same meaning of "For the one in authority is God's servant."
Satan is in authority over this world power and kingdoms. So Satan is God's servant if we follow your definition?
Please read Romans 13:1-7 in their proper context. Your Satan argument is irrelevant to Paul's message:
Romans 13New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Post by: dpogs on Nov 04, 2016 at 01:39 AM
Please read Romans 13:1-7 in their proper context. Your Satan argument is irrelevant to Paul's message:
Romans 13New International Version (NIV)
Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
oh... you're using the New International Version RE the use of phrase "God's servant" :( I am more accustomed to this translation:
"4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Post by: pTrader on Nov 28, 2016 at 12:41 AM
Post by: dpogs on Dec 08, 2016 at 09:18 AM
My God wants me to follow the law and the rules of government. I dont to the God of yours.
no wonder if someday you will forsake your so called god in order to survive in this world :( :( :(
some government law requires their people to sacrifice children - according to their law if not followed you will be killed... will you follow that law?
some government law forbid their people to worship your god - according to their law if not followed you will be killed... will you follow that law?
My God wants me to follow only His law. Nothing else.
my advice... laws in this world are just temporary... will change depende sa kung sino ang namuno... but your God will never change... hope you follow only your God not this government.
Post by: pTrader on Dec 08, 2016 at 09:56 AM
no wonder if someday you will forsake your so called god in order to survive in this world :( :( :(
some government law requires their people to sacrifice children - according to their law if not followed you will be killed... will you follow that law?
some government law forbid their people to worship your god - according to their law if not followed you will be killed... will you follow that law?
My God wants me to follow only His law. Nothing else.
my advice... laws in this world are just temporary... will change depende sa kung sino ang namuno... but your God will never change... hope you follow only your God not this government.
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Post by: dpogs on Dec 08, 2016 at 10:58 AM
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Will you subject yourself to the governing authorities if it dictates you not to worship God?
Will you obey the government if it forbid you to speak the name of God?
Follow the governing authority if it only follows God's authority.
Ex. Daniel
I will rather obey God rathen than to obey men/law of thid land.
As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God's law.
Post by: pTrader on Dec 08, 2016 at 02:16 PM
Will you subject yourself to the governing authorities if it dictates you not to worship God?
Will you obey the government if it forbid you to speak the name of God?
Follow the governing authority if it only follows God's authority.
Ex. Daniel
I will rather obey God rathen than to obey men/law of thid land.
As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God's law.
read pa more on Romans 13
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Dec 08, 2016 at 07:12 PM
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: dpogs on Dec 09, 2016 at 02:33 AM
Cherry picking the Bible is not a good study habit. The verses should not clash with each other. If it does, then probably there's something wrong with the interpretation.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Evil leaders (even pastors/priest/church leaders) usually use that verse (particularly Rom 13) to control their members for their own personal agenda. - "Kapag hindi kayo sumunod sa akin bilang isang pinuno, nagkakasala kayo sa mata ng Diyos kaya gawin niyo anuman ang ipapagawa ko at tumahimik na lang kayo." :( :( :(
We need to "subject" ourselves to governing authorities/laws here on earth but we must only "follow" God's law.
I cant follow any leader if their policies and ideals/plans are against the Word of God and if by doing so I am bound to be jailed (or even killed) by not following that leader then I will subject myself sa kung anuman ang katumbas na kaparusahan ayon sa batas ng tao.
Post by: dpogs on Feb 17, 2017 at 05:02 PM
Using your line of reasoning, since Jesus was condemned by the majority of the Jews, that means he was wrong, and the majority of the Israelites must be right.
Parang line of reasoning lang ni Manny Pac-U. :(
Also, using Sir Jerix line of reasoning, since Christianity have the biggest number of beleivers all other religion is wrong.
The Bible is the main source of Christianitys faith, therefore it is right since majority thinks it is right all other books or faith is wrong.
And by year 2070, Islam faith will take over Christianity, then Islam will be right then.
Tsk bad trip :) :) :)
Post by: dpogs on Feb 17, 2017 at 05:06 PM
Which god? So you saying that god you are referring to is the right god and everybody else's is wrong?
Following Jerix reasoning - God of Christianity since as of today they have the biggest number/population. Maybe not comes year 2070 :( :(
Post by: dpogs on Feb 17, 2017 at 05:18 PM
Ahhhh atheist ....tsk... They are all wrong all this time... Kakaunti lang kayo...
You are correct with your belief! Nobody questions your stand on matters but don't be too conceited to judge others and impose upon them that your belief is the correct way and the belief of others is wrong because ultimately, the measure is always in the numbers.
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Feb 18, 2017 at 12:16 AM
Ahhhh atheist ....tsk... They are all wrong all this time... Kakaunti lang kayo...
But they're rising. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/)
Post by: rascal101 on Feb 18, 2017 at 01:48 AM
Post by: tony on Feb 19, 2017 at 08:37 AM
Post by: oweidah on Feb 24, 2017 at 02:05 AM
AMEN
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 07:27 AM
after all did not Jesus asked his disciples to love one another?
to me this is the strongest message of them all....
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:17 AM
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/137270/pope-suggests-better-to-be-atheist-than-hypocritical-catholic
Hmmm, I find this a stupid quote considering coming from someone who suppose to know the bible. Atheist and hypocrital christian(not just catholic) are no better than the other. Bible says both will be condemned.
best to be a good person in general.....
after all did not Jesus asked his disciples to love one another?
to me this is the message of the of it all....
What do you mean by "to be a good person in general"? You mean if good works outnumber your bad ones? Does a generally good person automatically earns him/her salvation?
If so what is your understanding on Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES; it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast."?
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:28 AM
Quote
What do you mean by "to be a good person in general"? You mean if good works outnumber your bad ones? Does a generally good person automatically earns him/her salvation?
i mean just be good and love your neighbor, period.....did i mention salvation? ikaw lang yon...
do not give me your bible crap, it does not work for me the way you present it....
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:37 AM
i mean just be good and love your neighbor, period.....did i mention salvation? ikaw lang yon...
do not give me your bible crap, it does not work for me the way you present it....
I'm not trying to make it work on you. You have already decided your faith (and your fate).
I'm concern about other people reading the post here. They need to know what the bible has to say about it. And they decide what they want to believe.
We have accountability in what we say in this topic as you can make other people stumble. Mark 9:42 says “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea."
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:39 AM
what if one day Jesus came back and tells you, what bible? i never said those words? what then?
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:42 AM
my God does not threaten, hor hate another.....my God is all about love....
Obviously you follow a different god. Not the God as what the bible reveals.
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:44 AM
what if one day Jesus came back and tells you, what bible? i never said those words? what then?
"What if"??? Nah, I'm am sure about the bible as the Word of God. If you will only take time to study it, understand it, meditate on it, and experience God's power thru it. You will know also and not doubt.
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:44 AM
Obviously you follow a different god. Not the God as what the bible reveals.
how can you even say that?
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:46 AM
"What if"??? Nah, I'm am sure about the bible as the Word of God. If you will only take time to study it, understand it, meditate on it, and experience God's power thru it. You will know also and not doubt.
i have read it but not memorized it.....i am after the meat of the bible,
not the words on it that men wrote a good 80 years after Christ and
meddled on by the powers that be at the time...
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:46 AM
how can you even say that?
Could you find a verse that supports you claims altogether? You are only looking at one side of God's nature and character.
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:47 AM
i have read it but not memorized it.....i am after the meat of the bible,
not the words on it that men wrote a good 80 years after Christ and
meddled on by the powers that be at the time...
You don't have to memorize all of it . You need to understand its principles. Thats why you meditate on it to get revelations from the Word.
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:48 AM
Could you find a verse that supports you claims altogether? You are only looking at one side of God's nature and character.
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:51 AM
typical response.....
How can you really make your claims about God if you don't even understand the bible? your basis is your own, and you want to convince people on that??? You want people to put their faith in what you say?
These things I write are not on my own. It is in the bible.
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 08:57 AM
how can you know what i know? i never pretend to know what you know.....you are typical of a bible reader....
do you know what is in my heart of hearts?
i am not here to make you believe nor any other....
How can you really make your claims about God if you don't even understand the bible? your basis is your own, and you want to convince people on that??? You want people to put their faith in what you say?
These things I write are not on my own. It is in the bible.
Post by: JT on Feb 24, 2017 at 09:08 AM
even a learned in the bible can be mislead.....
how can you know what i know? i never pretend to know what you know.....you are typical of a bible reader....
do you know what is in my heart of hearts?
i am not here to make you believe nor any other....
I agree. No one knows everything. The bible says "for we know in part and we prophecy in part" .
But what you are saying is obviously wrong according to the Bible (not by my word). Its does'nt take a genius to understand it. No need to discern the heart.
I'm not saying you are a bad person. But bible is clear that being a good person does not earn your way to heaven nor even make you a better person than the others (whether atheist, murderers, etc.). Because without making Jesus Christ as our Lord (to rule over us in everything), we all have fallen short to God's standard.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 24, 2017 at 09:16 AM
what if one day Jesus came back and tells you, what bible? i never said those words? what then?
i have read it but not memorized it.....i am after the meat of the bible,
not the words on it that men wrote a good 80 years after Christ and
meddled on by the powers that be at the time...
I am always amused by the way you answer questions master Tony. ;) But since you said na:
Quote
i am after the meat of the bible,
in your words:
what if one day Jesus came back and tells you, what bible? i never said those words? what then?
What then? :)
Note: Never meant to ask you in a disrespectful way. Just curious lang din ako for your answer.
Post by: bumblebee on Feb 24, 2017 at 09:26 AM
Atheist and hypocrital christian(not just catholic) are no better than the other. Bible says both will be condemned.
Bad Bible, bad.
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:18 AM
I am always amused by the way you answer questions master Tony. ;) But since you said na:
in your words:
What then? :)
Note: Never meant to ask you in a disrespectful way. Just curious lang din ako for your answer.
i have no answer but this....
(https://scontent.fmnl6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1606853_480848835355212_578901863_n.jpg?oh=7b9689fea940f7ee3d4c564a9e8c1b10&oe=59400AF9)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 24, 2017 at 05:17 PM
Atheist and hypocrital christian(not just catholic) are no better than the other. Bible says both will be condemned.
Bad Bible, bad.
At first glance I have to agree with you. However, let us try to identify each.
Atheist = A person who doesn't believe in God.
How can an atheist be in heaven (kingdom of God) if he doesn't believe that the said God and His kingdom doesn't exist? Parang illogical di ba?
hypocrital christian = medjo vague sa aking ng unti ang desciption pero let's try the dictionary:
adjective
1.
of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess:
The parent who has a “do what I say and not what I do” attitude can appear hypocritical to a child.
2.
possessing the characteristics of hypocrisy :
Being a hypocrite in his current status I think will not go to heaven. Maniniwala ba naman ba tayo na may hypocrite sa heaven? I am assuming wala.
However, being a hypocrite or atheist, there is still a way or can go to heaven. So kung baga, may pag-asa. Hehe! Have I xplained it clearly ba? Medjo i'm not good at expressing myself minsan thru typing.
Post by: bumblebee on Feb 24, 2017 at 05:35 PM
Atheist = A person who doesn't believe in God.
How can an atheist be in heaven (kingdom of God) if he doesn't believe that the said God and His kingdom doesn't exist? Parang illogical di ba?
I think it's okay for an atheist to not go to heaven, if it turned out he's wrong and there's indeed heaven. But I do believe he shouldn't be punished (cast down in hell) for it. That would be unfair.
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 05:39 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 24, 2017 at 06:09 PM
me nakarating na ba sa heaven at na confirm na meron nga?Does Jesus count?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 24, 2017 at 06:36 PM
I think it's okay for an atheist to not go to heaven, if it turned out he's wrong and there's indeed heaven. But I do believe he shouldn't be punished (cast down in hell) for it. That would be unfair.You have a point again sir. However, kung hindi sa heaven saan siya pupunta?
I'm not sure kasi if there's such thing as a neutral place.
Alam ko, basically there's also a way for an atheist to be in heaven. I forgot the verse pero AFAIK, the atheist or non-believer will be judged according to his actions.
Ang problem lang dun, no human being is perfect. Meaning each one of us definitely have and always commits a sin at least everyday. So without forgiveness of said sins, paano na?
Actually that is the reason why Jesus was sent to us. To forgive our sins. God (as from the very word itself) is a perfect being. In order for us to be with Him in heaven, we should be sinless. Parang government, kapag may sala, may punishment. Let's exclude Philippines muna. Hehe! Hindi pwedeng walang punishment.
But, since God knows that hindi natin kayang maging sinless, God sent Jesus to atone for our sins. That's how God loves us. Sa court of law, when you are punished, kulong or death penalty. Now if you have a son who committed a crime, if asked by the court kung payag ka na palit kayo ng anak mo. Ikaw ang kulong ms death sentence, ang anak mo, laya na. Im sure payag ka because of your unconditional love for your son. Same applies with God and Jesus Christ.
Why do we need atonement? Payment for our sins. Meaning we need not suffer the punishment (call it hell or whatever) as long as we believe and trust that Jesus Christ died for our sins because Christ is perfect. Only a perfect Being can offer a perfect sacrifice (Himself) to a perfect God.
Kaya the resurrection is also very important. If Christ did not resurrect, that means He has no power over death, and over our sins. And everything will be in vain.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: tony on Feb 24, 2017 at 07:51 PM
Does Jesus count?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: dpogs on Feb 24, 2017 at 10:17 PM
me nakarating na ba sa heaven at na confirm na meron nga?
Apostle John said
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
ang banal na kasulatan ay isinulat upang malaman natin na merong buhay na walang hanggan - heaven.
Even Jesus said that if we can't trust and doubted the Bible then even if some mortal rose from the dead you cant be persuaded (Lk 16:31).
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Feb 24, 2017 at 10:47 PM
i mean mortals...
Jesus Christ had a mortal body. ;)
Other than that, none that I know of. Though it should stop us from believing there is.
Post by: dpogs on Feb 24, 2017 at 11:17 PM
Jesus Christ had a mortal body. ;)
Other than that, none that I know of. Though it should stop us from believing there is.
and Jesus was born mortals :)
Post by: krets pulpol on Mar 06, 2017 at 03:59 PM
ayos >:D
Post by: tony on Mar 06, 2017 at 04:15 PM
Post by: rochie on Mar 06, 2017 at 04:43 PM
Post by: dpogs on Mar 06, 2017 at 05:27 PM
pati yung school na hindi pag-aari ng simbahan dapat busisiin din. langya yung isang Univ dito sa south foundation ang declaration kaya walang binabayarang tax pero ang mahal ng tuition,pati yung hospital ewan ko kung nagbabayad dahil foundation din kuno. pero yung may-ari ang yaman na :D :D :D :D
Anong simbahan sir?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 10, 2017 at 11:07 PM
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Hello sir. Ngayon ko lang naisip sagutin. You shoulf first reconcile Pomans 13 with Acts 4:18-21:
18 Then they (Sanhedrin) called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
21 After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened.
I personally agree with you that we should follow and govern the authorities. However, if you only take the verse as is, you cannot reconcile that with the other parts of the bible. Remember we should take the bible as a whole.
Romans 13 deals with the practice of being righteous kaya sinasabi na we should follow the governing authorities. Hence included in the practice of righteousness is the following of the government. But remember that is not absolute. Kaya nga sa Acts 4 hindi sinunod nila Peter and John yun Sanhedrin when they were ordered not to talk about the gospel. Acts 4 is about the start of the ministry of the apostles in spreading the word hence the obligation to preach the gospel.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 11, 2017 at 01:41 AM
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:
1 Corinthians 14:2a
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 11, 2017 at 01:54 AM
I was browsing back and encountered a question something like how do you know you are speaking to God. Found this.
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God:
1 Corinthians 14:2a
Maganda yan sir. pero masmaganda kung buuin natin so we'll clearly know the instructions:
1 Cor. 14
Intelligibility in Worship
14 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
Post by: newbie pa rin on Mar 13, 2017 at 08:27 AM
Post by: tony on Mar 13, 2017 at 08:31 AM
if your religion teaches hate, teaches exclusivity, then better look somehwere else...
Post by: bumblebee on Mar 13, 2017 at 08:56 AM
why even the devil can recite the bible, who is to know?
if your religion teaches hate, teaches exclusivity, then better look somehwere else...
The Devil can't recite the Bible? WTF?
Sabagay, he (the Devil) doesn't seem to know what everybody else know. Or does he? >:D
Post by: JT on Mar 13, 2017 at 09:18 AM
why even the devil can recite the bible, who is to know?
if your religion teaches hate, teaches exclusivity, then better look somehwere else...
Does the devil knows the scriptures? In Luke 4:9-12, "And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; 10 for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,' 11 and, 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' " 12 And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is said, 'you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
In here, Satan quoted Psalm 91:11-12 and Jesus quoted Deut. 6:16. So what do you think?
Are you even reading the bible? Because if you do you will find Hate and Exclusivity is there also but in God's context. So where do you recommend to look then?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM
Speaking in toungues might not benefit others if not interpreted but it definitely has benefits to the one who spoke. And, still speaking in toungues is speaking with God. If speaking with God has no benefits then I rest my case.
Wala ata akong sinabi that it does not have benefits sir. Hehe!
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: tony on Mar 13, 2017 at 10:58 AM
Quote
Does the devil knows the scriptures?
i believe so....and my basis is not the bible itself but thousands of years of written history....
where men's inhumanity to man is well recorded...
Post by: dpogs on Mar 13, 2017 at 11:06 AM
Speaking in toungues might not benefit others if not interpreted but it definitely has benefits to the one who spoke. And, still speaking in toungues is speaking with God. If speaking with God has no benefits then I rest my case.
First, what is speaking in tongue?
We can talk to God sa language na meron tayo. When we pray to God do we speak in tongue?
Is God cant understand our own language at kailangan pa nating mag speak of tongue para lang kausapin ang Diyos?
Kung ang tinutukoy nating "speak of tongue" ay iyong ginagawa ng mga pentecostal or kung tawagin natin ay mga "born again" what i believe is that is not the "speaking intpngue" mentioned in the Bible.
Post by: ninjababez® on Mar 15, 2017 at 07:46 AM
First, what is speaking in tongue?ito yata yun mga baby talk ng mga religious leader pagkausap nila dyos bro
Post by: tony on Mar 15, 2017 at 07:56 AM
and tries to dip their other hand into your pockets....
you see them in front of public markets,
they ride jeepneys and busses....
Does the devil knows the scriptures? In Luke 4:9-12, "And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; 10 for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,' 11 and, 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' " 12 And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is said, 'you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
In here, Satan quoted Psalm 91:11-12 and Jesus quoted Deut. 6:16. So what do you think?
Are you even reading the bible? Because if you do you will find Hate and Exclusivity is there also but in God's context. So where do you recommend to look then?
Post by: dpogs on Mar 15, 2017 at 08:26 AM
ito yata yun mga baby talk ng mga religious leader pagkausap nila dyos bro
tapos biglang matutumba nangingisay sa sahig habang nag baby talk at walang ibang nakakaintindi I bet kahit siya hindi niya maintindihan kung ano lumalabas sa bibig niya more like blubbering to me :( :( :(
why? I mean... hindi ba tayo maiintindihan ng Diyos kapag kinakausap natin siya gamit sarili nating wika. Kahit nga hindi tayo magsalita nababasa at naiintindihan ng Diyos ang ating isipan. Holy Spirit lives within us and God understand our every thoughts, beat of our hearts, our feelings.
We talked to God when we pray anytime anywhere... We can talk to God while we're walking, while driving (just don't close your eyes :) ), kahit kalian kahit saan we talked to God through prayers and God talked to us sa pamamagitan ng Salita ng Diyos (Bible), our Pastor/Minister/Priest using the Bible.
Kung babasahin natin ang Bibliya ganito dapat ang speaking of tongue - Magsasalita ako in my own language pero ikaw maiintindihan mo ako in your own language. This is very useful sana ngayon kasi ang mga missionary in a foreign land hindi na kailangan mag-aral ng foreign language to reach out souls for Christ. Kaya lang kasi if we will speak in tongue it must be in accordance to the Bible
1. Real and Intelligible language 1 Cor. 14:10
2. Purpose must be communicating God's word with person of another language Acts 2:6-12
3. There must be two at most three person and speaking one at a time and an interpreter is needed or else be quiet in church and talk to himself and God 1 Cor. 27-28
4. Must be in accordance 1 Cor. 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion.."
Post by: ninjababez® on Mar 15, 2017 at 08:32 AM
tapos biglang matutumba nangingisay sa sahig habang nag baby talk at walang ibang nakakaintindi I bet kahit siya hindi niya maintindihan kung ano lumalabas sa bibig niya more like blubbering to me :( :( :(not sure bro, pero afaik know pag nag baby talk ka, mas malaki chance ibigay sayo ang gusto mo. effective ito pag naglalambing ka sa gf, ewan ko lang kay god ;D ;D
why? I mean... hindi ba tayo maiintindihan ng Diyos kapag kinakausap natin siya gamit sarili nating wika. Kahit nga hindi tayo magsalita nababasa at naiintindihan ng Diyos ang ating isipan. Holy Spirit lives within us and God understand our every thoughts, beat of our hearts, our feelings.
Post by: JT on Mar 15, 2017 at 09:50 AM
oh you see them everywhere, they hold the bible in one hand
and tries to dip their other hand into your pockets....
you see them in front of public markets,
they ride jeepneys and busses....
If there are false ones, there must be true, right? So you hate politicians and lawyers more because they steal more from the people.
Post by: JT on Mar 15, 2017 at 10:03 AM
First, what is speaking in tongue?
We can talk to God sa language na meron tayo. When we pray to God do we speak in tongue?
Is God cant understand our own language at kailangan pa nating mag speak of tongue para lang kausapin ang Diyos?
Kung ang tinutukoy nating "speak of tongue" ay iyong ginagawa ng mga pentecostal or kung tawagin natin ay mga "born again" what i believe is that is not the "speaking intpngue" mentioned in the Bible.
Its a gift of the Holy Spirit and there are diversities of tongues. And yes, there are those who are faking it, not just the Pentecostals. Again, there fake because there are genuine ones.
Its main purpose is to edify oneself and for praying when you don't know what to pray for.
For example in edifying, there are times I'm down or discouraged and having difficulty praying in my language or cant focus reading the bible. Praying in the tongues (in the spirit) help me to get in tune and even remove my burden.
For example in praying, there was one incident when I suddenly woke up around 4am and I have this heaviness in my heart. I know God is asking me to intercede and pray but what to pray for? So I prayed in tongues until I got peace in my heart and able to go back to sleep, That morning I found out a brethren of mine had an accident after the time I had prayed. She had fallen asleep while driving and hit an electric box. She should have died as the car got torn apart and would have been electrocuted but she miraculously survive with no major bruise.
Post by: dpogs on Mar 15, 2017 at 12:59 PM
Post by: ninjababez® on Mar 16, 2017 at 12:57 AM
Its a gift of the Holy Spirit and there are diversities of tongues. And yes, there are those who are faking it, not just the Pentecostals. Again, there fake because there are genuine ones.anong auto bro?
Its main purpose is to edify oneself and for praying when you don't know what to pray for.
For example in edifying, there are times I'm down or discouraged and having difficulty praying in my language or cant focus reading the bible. Praying in the tongues (in the spirit) help me to get in tune and even remove my burden.
For example in praying, there was one incident when I suddenly woke up around 4am and I have this heaviness in my heart. I know God is asking me to intercede and pray but what to pray for? So I prayed in tongues until I got peace in my heart and able to go back to sleep, That morning I found out a brethren of mine had an accident after the time I had prayed. She had fallen asleep while driving and hit an electric box. She should have died as the car got torn apart and would have been electrocuted but she miraculously survive with no major bruise.
Post by: JT on Mar 16, 2017 at 06:49 AM
anong auto bro?
I think she was driving a honda civic hatchback.
Post by: ninjababez® on Mar 16, 2017 at 07:22 AM
I think she was driving a honda civic hatchback.ang liit ng kotse pala bro, she's lucky talaga.
Post by: JT on Mar 16, 2017 at 08:32 AM
ang liit ng kotse pala bro, she's lucky talaga.
Yah thats why we know its a miracle. Even yung mga medics and police cant believe she survive the crash with minor injuries.
Actually di lang ako yung nag pray. There were 3 of us having the same conviction to pray that time.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 19, 2017 at 07:11 PM
killing for the greater good may be okay. As indicated in the bible, God ordered to kill all, but one soldier took pity and spared woman and child. And for this he was punished.
You are right sir. That happened. And did you know why?
Because he did not follow God's command? Or because of the scorched earth policy of the Israelites. The move was more tactical than religious.
Medjo mahaba but please bear with me.
Taken from:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html
Quote
Question: "Who were the Amalekites?"
Answer: The Amalekites were a tribe first mentioned during the time of Abraham (Genesis 14:7). Though the Amalekites are not mentioned in the table of nations in Genesis 10, in Numbers 24:20 they are referred to as “first among the nations.” Genesis 36 refers to the descendants of Amalek, the son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau, as Amalekites (verses 12 and 16). So, the Amalekites were somehow related to, but distinct from, the Edomites.
Scripture records the long-lasting feud between the Amalekites and the Israelites and God’s direction to wipe the Amalekites off the face of the earth (Exodus 17:8–13; 1 Samuel 15:2; Deuteronomy 25:17). Why God would call His people to exterminate an entire tribe is a difficult question, but a look at history may give some insight.
Like many desert tribes, the Amalekites were nomadic. Numbers 13:29 places them as native to the Negev, the desert between Egypt and Canaan. The Babylonians called them the Sute, Egyptians the Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets refer to them as the Khabbati, or “plunderers.”
The Amalekites’ unrelenting brutality toward the Israelites began with an attack at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8–13). This is recounted in Deuteronomy 25:17–19 with this admonition: “Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind [typically women and children]: they had no fear of God. When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!”
The Amalekites later joined with the Canaanites and attacked the Israelites at Hormah (Numbers 14:45). In Judges they banded with the Moabites (Judges 3:13) and the Midianites (Judges 6:3) to wage war on the Israelites. They were responsible for the repeated destruction of the Israelites’ land and food supply.
In 1 Samuel 15:2–3, God tells King Saul, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
In response, King Saul first warns the Kenites, friends of Israel, to leave the area. He then attacks the Amalekites but does not complete the task. He allows the Amalekite King Agag to live, takes plunder for himself and his army, and lies about the reason for doing so. Saul’s rebellion against God and His commands is so serious that he is rejected by God as king (1 Samuel 15:23).
The escaped Amalekites continued to harass and plunder the Israelites in successive generations that spanned hundreds of years. First Samuel 30 reports an Amalekite raid on Ziklag, a Judean village where David held property. The Amalekites burned the village and took captive all the women and children, including two of David’s wives. David and his men defeated the Amalekites and rescued all the hostages. A few hundred Amalekites escaped, however. Much later, during the reign of King Hezekiah, a group of Simeonites “killed the remaining Amalekites” who had been living in the hill country of Seir (1 Chronicles 4:42–43).
The last mention of the Amalekites is found in the book of Esther where Haman the Agagite, a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag, connives to have all the Jews in Persia annihilated by order of King Xerxes. God saved the Jews in Persia, however, and Haman, his sons, and the rest of Israel’s enemies were destroyed instead (Esther 9:5–10).
The Amalekites’ hatred of the Jews and their repeated attempts to destroy God’s people led to their ultimate doom. Their fate should be a warning to all who would attempt to thwart God’s plan or who would curse what God has blessed (see Genesis 12:3).
It was both tactical and religious in nature sir.
Post by: JT on Apr 20, 2017 at 06:09 AM
Medjo mahaba but please bear with me.
Taken from:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html
It was both tactical and religious in nature sir.
Much more than that. The reason God wants to wipe out Amalekites, Canaanites, Rephaites, Ammonites, and other tribes (but not all tribes right) because they are nephilims(half human and half something else). They are abominations before God with corrupted genes. Israelites call them Amalekites meaning "vampire-like demons". And God wants to preserve humanity for the coming of His Son Jesus.
Its the same reason God wipes out everyone and only preserve Noah and his families because they are pure human dna. Bible says Jesus coming is just like the days of Noah. Did you notice cosmetic surgeries, dna manipulations, cross-breeding are now mainstream.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 27, 2017 at 02:02 AM
Much more than that. The reason God wants to wipe out Amalekites, Canaanites, Rephaites, Ammonites, and other tribes (but not all tribes right) because they are nephilims(half human and half something else). They are abominations before God with corrupted genes. Israelites call them Amalekites meaning "vampire-like demons". And God wants to preserve humanity for the coming of His Son Jesus.
Its the same reason God wipes out everyone and only preserve Noah and his families because they are pure human dna. Bible says Jesus coming is just like the days of Noah. Did you notice cosmetic surgeries, dna manipulations, cross-breeding are now mainstream.
hmmm... can you give us Bible reference na nagsasabing there are half-human and half-'whatever' (demon, animals, alien) and I just want to confirm - Did God destroy all except Noah because they have pure human DNA? and the rest doesn't have pure human DNA?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 27, 2017 at 04:16 AM
hmmm... can you give us Bible reference na nagsasabing there are half-human and half-'whatever' (demon, animals, alien) and I just want to confirm - Did God destroy all except Noah because they have pure human DNA? and the rest doesn't have pure human DNA?
Numbers 13
Report on the Exploration
26 They came back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran. There they reported to them and to the whole assembly and showed them the fruit of the land. 27 They gave Moses this account: “We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. 28 But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there. 29 The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan.”
30 Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”
31 But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” 32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Post by: JT on Apr 27, 2017 at 04:56 AM
hmmm... can you give us Bible reference na nagsasabing there are half-human and half-'whatever' (demon, animals, alien) and I just want to confirm - Did God destroy all except Noah because they have pure human DNA? and the rest doesn't have pure human DNA?
Madami kung babasahin ang bibliya. And trace the genealogies of the races mentioned you will know.
Anyway, even sa wiki you find some info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
Post by: dpogs on Apr 27, 2017 at 05:03 AM
Numbers 13
Report on the Exploration
26 They came back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran. There they reported to them and to the whole assembly and showed them the fruit of the land. 27 They gave Moses this account: “We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. 28 But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there. 29 The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan.”
30 Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”
31 But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” 32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
thank you.
Madami kung babasahin ang bibliya. And trace the genealogies of the races mentioned you will know.
Anyway, even sa wiki you find some info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
well... the Bible does not specifically give us the answer if indeed "Nephlim" and/or "sons of God" some sort of hybrid human - presumably half-human half-angels (fallen angels)...
Post by: JT on Apr 27, 2017 at 05:10 AM
well... the Bible does not specifically give us the answer if indeed "Nephlim" and/or "sons of God" some sort of hybrid human - presumably half-human half-angels (fallen angels)...
English translation does not. Hebrew and Greek (original language of the bible) has much deeper and broader context in every word compared to english. Some hebrew/greek word cannot be translated directly to english.
However, english translation is sufficient to convey the message of salvation. You need to study the bible in its original language in order to get the full picture.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 27, 2017 at 05:23 AM
English translation does not. Hebrew and Greek (original language of the bible) has much deeper and broader context in every word compared to english. Some hebrew/greek word cannot be translated directly to english.
However, english translation is sufficient to convey the message of salvation. You need to study the bible in its original language in order to get the full picture.
there are two stronger views regarding sa kugn sino nga ba ang mga "sons of God"
1> fallen angels
2> line of seth
when it comes to salvation view 2 is more applicable.
when it comes to salvation - God destroys everyone except for Noah and his family because of human sins (not because fallen angels married to daughter of men)
we don't believe in evolution because God created human (animals, plants all other living things) after their kind. human begat human and dogs begat dogs. not believing in evolution but believing in crossbreeding between human and demon (fallen angels) ? ? ? :):):)
God created everyone with their physical limitation (only God can break this limitation) - human can/will only produce human, dog can/will produce dog, gumamela can/will produce gumamela, but I never read or heard that angels can produce angels... tao pa kaya.
Ex. Jesus when he was born He is full human - not half human half God. :) :)
Post by: tony on Apr 27, 2017 at 07:58 AM
when it was very clear that before Jesus died on the cross
the last suffer happened, there was breaking of the bread
and sharing of wine, and this represented His body and blood
and his life that will have to given up so that sins are forgiven...
Jesus was the sacrificial lamb that had to be slaughtered
so that all the prophecies about Him is full filled....
at the same gathering, Jesus commanded his disciples,
love one another as i have loved you....
to me this is at the hearth of our being christians......
nothing more, nothing less....
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 27, 2017 at 08:55 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 28, 2017 at 01:00 AM
Question. If God wanted to get rid of beings with not so pure human DNA, why didn't he do it ala "passover"? Why flood?I think hindi lang humans ang kailangan mawala but pati animals din although He chose specific animals. Although I think there is no human being who can comprehend the mind of God, the flood is a logical choice over "passover" if pati animals were to be eliminated. We can also view the use of water sa flood as a symbol of cleansing. Wala pa kasing rain that time prior to the great flood.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: JT on Apr 28, 2017 at 06:20 AM
Question. If God wanted to get rid of beings with not so pure human DNA, why didn't he do it ala "passover"? Why flood?
I think hindi lang humans ang kailangan mawala but pati animals din although He chose specific animals. Although I think there is no human being who can comprehend the mind of God, the flood is a logical choice over "passover" if pati animals were to be eliminated. We can also view the use of water sa flood as a symbol of cleansing. Wala pa kasing rain that time prior to the great flood.
Totally agree with Bro.Nelson.
And also, these are types and shadows of God's order. In John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the SPIRIT (symbolizes by FIRE), he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
The next rebirth for Earth and Mankind is no longer by WATER but by FIRE. And then God's kingdom will be fully re-established on Earth.
Post by: JT on Apr 28, 2017 at 06:35 AM
people like to live and dwell on the past.....
when it was very clear that before Jesus died on the cross
the last suffer happened, there was breaking of the bread
and sharing of wine, and this represented His body and blood
and his life that will have to given up so that sins are forgiven...
Jesus was the sacrificial lamb that had to be slaughtered
so that all the prophecies about Him is full filled....
at the same gathering, Jesus commanded his disciples,
love one another as i have loved you....
to me this is at the hearth of our being christians......
nothing more, nothing less....
This is the way of life for every Christians. But not the way to eternal life.
John 3:16 is very clear when it says "... that whosoever believes in him [Jesus] shall not perish but have eternal life".
Loving God and loving people is the fruit(not the root) of your salvation(which is faith in the Lord Jesus).
Post by: tony on Apr 28, 2017 at 06:46 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 28, 2017 at 07:00 AM
who wants eternal life? why is it such a big deal?
why eternal life is such a big deal? if we based it on your post:
First, we cant genuinely break bread and share wine with Jesus if we don't have Eternal Life.
Second, we cant love one another if we don't have eternal life (experience Jesus love - "as I have loved you")
Third, for us to have a genuine Christian heart
we can't live a Christian life if in the first place if we don't have eternal life (if we are not Christian).
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 28, 2017 at 09:49 AM
I think hindi lang humans ang kailangan mawala but pati animals din although He chose specific animals. Although I think there is no human being who can comprehend the mind of God, the flood is a logical choice over "passover" if pati animals were to be eliminated. We can also view the use of water sa flood as a symbol of cleansing. Wala pa kasing rain that time prior to the great flood.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
No rain ever? And the rain flooded the planet? Where did all the water come from?
Post by: JT on Apr 28, 2017 at 11:01 AM
It was only until Noah where God bursted the firmament above the earth for the rain to fall.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 28, 2017 at 04:03 PM
No rain ever? And the rain flooded the planet? Where did all the water come from?
1. There is water above the firmanent
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst 5of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis
2. Therr is water underground
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 28, 2017 at 10:40 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 28, 2017 at 11:42 PM
So the land was floating on water?I'm every culture there has been a flood that devastated everything. Before we proceed? If I may humbly ask if you're looking for a theoretical/scientific answer? If you, I haven't done any but I can do some research for you. But if its a "faith" based question, then my answer would be that I do not find it impossible for a powerful God to make, create and flood the earth with water. However, there are current discoveries of water tunnels under the earth all around the world. If we have geisers and water springs, we may conclude that said water tunnels exist and that it is not imposible that it has already existed in the past.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 29, 2017 at 07:44 AM
How can there be a great flood from in every culture when according to bible they all should have been wiped out? Or if the flood story was just passed down to them by noah, how come noah's forgotten by these cultures?
Where did all the water go?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM
Any kind of answer will do.
How can there be a great flood from in every culture when according to bible they all should have been wiped out? Or if the flood story was just passed down to them by noah, how come noah's forgotten by these cultures?
Where did all the water go?
Why people or other culture forgotten Noahs flood? Dyan pumapasok si Satan. The same reason why too many religion exist. Satan is a master and very well versed in God's word. Satan can twist the word of God to create confusion among peole. To answer your question it is the works of Satan why people forgot about Noahs flood. Panigurado ako we also forgot why theres a rainbow :) :).
Where did all the water go? Take a look around you, lakes rivers streams seas oceans north/sout pole ice etc. It doesnt "go" the flood water stays :) :) :)
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 29, 2017 at 01:57 PM
Re water. Are you saying the earth' crust was flat back then and trenches were created to accommodate all the water?
Post by: dpogs on Apr 29, 2017 at 03:24 PM
Oh si satan. So satan knows the word of god. How do you know your version of noah is not satan's doing?
Re water. Are you saying the earth' crust was flat back then and trenches were created to accommodate all the water?
Yes. Satan from the begining use the word of God and twist it to deceive adam and eve. :)
I consider the Bible as the final authority of my beleif and the very own word of God. By faith. :) You may ask me if how i am sure that the Bible is the very own Gods word not Satans - my simple answer will be BY FAITH :) For without faith it is impossible to please God. :)
The Bible never mentioned specifically the exact topography of earth before noah flood but one thing i am sure back then earths topograhpy is near perfect.
Also i mentioned the rainbow. It is significant because its a covenant between God man and animals. God promised that destructiom by water will never happen again and I believe durinf the 1 year flood God changes earth topography so that great flood will never happen again. :)
Post by: DPT on Apr 29, 2017 at 03:38 PM
who wants eternal life? why is it such a big deal?
Immortality means different to different people.
Religious people are usually betting that there is life after death. The life where all their memories and feelings are preserved and just goes on another plane of existence.
Not to be rude or anything. But this Religious gamble has been played for thousands of years. You can make anyone believe anything or do anything if you threaten their immortality.
That is why the concept of hell, heaven and purgatory is soo appealing to a lot of people especially the ones that wants the easy way.
It is a personal choice to gamble your existential now for some future nirvana or reward. But one thing that we should think of IMHO is why we view our present planet or earth as a temporary way point on to some journey that no one has came back or seen.
Without logic or anything. It just basically does not make any sense.
Things would be different if people rationally. And think of our planet as the only place you will be at from birth to death and nothing after for sure. Humanity will be better off.
Less people strapping bombs on themselves blowing themselves up in exchange for the promise of entry to heaven. Or making people doing weird crap because someone told them that a "God" directly is communicating with them.
Personally for me it is a con played on millions of people.
It makes me cringe when ever someone would insinuate or directly say that someone is going to "hell" or a horrible place because you offended "God" Or supernatural being of their own invention by doing something. Or say you are going to heaven because you did this and that.
Who are they to say anyway? Their word is as good as anyone actually. It is just a wild shot in a dark.
Post by: dpogs on Apr 29, 2017 at 03:49 PM
Quote
Personally for me it is a con played on millions of people.
And the master con artist since the beginning - the Serpent :) :) so successful that there exists too many religion creating chaos confusion and bring people to love their own flesh and focus on temporary rather than eternal things. :) :)
It is my beleif that Satan still active today deceiving people using world leaders celebreties material things radical faith terrorist extremist etc
Post by: DPT on Apr 29, 2017 at 03:52 PM
And the master con artist since the beginning - the Serpent :) :) so successful that there exists too many religion creating chaos confusion and bring people to love their own flesh and focus on temporary rather than eternal things. :) :)
It is my beleif that Satan still active today deceiving people using world leaders celebreties material things radical faith terrorist extremist etc
We have not met the serpent, satan, or other names we call him.
I know this would come as offensive.
But what makes satan, serpent or other names different from the kapres, mananangal, diwende etc etc
All of them are imaginary creations of man.
No one can convince anyone by saying they exist because they said so? Or you threaten them with a gamble with no loss plus all the benefits.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 29, 2017 at 04:40 PM
Post by: JT on Apr 29, 2017 at 07:15 PM
But what makes satan, serpent or other names different from the kapres, mananangal, diwende etc etc
All of them are imaginary creations of man.
No one can convince anyone by saying they exist because they said so? Or you threaten them with a gamble with no loss plus all the benefits.
Are you sure they are fiction?
when i was young we had an experience where our car got some trouble running when are coming back from old tandang sora (back when it is still full of balete trees). and there was this bright light at the back even when we are the only one on the road on the way to quezon memorial. Our drive becomes normal only when we reach the circle. My uncle said he saw a big creature like a tikbalang took a ride with us when leaving their house in tandang sora.
another experience is when i was a new born again. barely a month i suddenly woke up around 3am when i felt a huge creature seating on me cursing me and mocking me being christian. it looks exactly like a kapre. almost choke me to death until I remember the power of the name of Jesus. It went away after I commanded it to get off me in Jesus name.
So are they real? of course they are. Who are they? not the fallen angels but the nephilim that died in the flood and those annihilated by the Israelites. They became disembodied spirits also known as demons.
Post by: JT on Apr 29, 2017 at 07:25 PM
Thanks dpogs. Anyone else on where the water went?
Evaporation process creating a totally different Earth atmosphere. Without the original water canopy above, the weather is hotter and not regulated anymore. Could be the reason why lifespan becomes shorter.
But I believe most of the water went back underground. Back from the source as the bible says from the foundations of the earth. Scientist has confirmed there is a layer of water underneath the earth's crust which holds as much water as the oceans we have today.
Post by: JT on Apr 29, 2017 at 07:33 PM
Any kind of answer will do.
How can there be a great flood from in every culture when according to bible they all should have been wiped out? Or if the flood story was just passed down to them by noah, how come noah's forgotten by these cultures?
After the flood, human population increases again. then comes the tower of babylon where everyone got scattered and becomes different culture telling the account of the great flood. out of these syempre magiging ibat ibang version na until the true story is forgotten.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 29, 2017 at 07:52 PM
Post by: JT on Apr 29, 2017 at 08:00 PM
How do you know that the bible version is the true story of the flood?
Because i believe the bible is the word of God. Any wrong information or lies in it invalidates its integrity.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 29, 2017 at 08:17 PM
So most of the water came from undergound or from the rain?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2017 at 08:35 PM
Thanks, jt.That cannot be answered kung which is more. The point of the bible is not how many water came from the sky or under the earth but why it happened.
So most of the water came from undergound or from the rain?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2017 at 08:53 PM
Immortality means different to different people.
That is why the concept of hell, heaven and purgatory is soo appealing to a lot of people especially the ones that wants the easy way.
It is a personal choice to gamble your existential now for some future nirvana or reward. But one thing that we should think of IMHO is why we view our present planet or earth as a temporary way point on to some journey that no one has came back or seen.
Without logic or anything. It just basically does not make any sense.
Things would be different if people rationally. And think of our planet as the only place you will be at from birth to death and nothing after for sure. Humanity will be better off.
Sir, you are correct. Humanity can think that way logically. That is, there is no heaven or hell. However, it's is also logical to think that there's heaven and hell. With regards to the logic of the existence of an intellectual design which points to a higher being, there is a thread here with the arguments already laid. With regards to the existence of heaven or hell, I think it is logical din because in the absence of the knowledge of the afterlife, there are also people who, since I'm the absence of said knowledge, doesn't hold himself accountable kaya they can possibly and intentionally do "bad" things or violate our law. Why? Probably because kapag hindi siya nahuli ng law and walang punishment, lusot na siya. However, if he believes heaven and hell, heaven is a reward for those who believe in the creator of heaven and do good things not only for the benefit of mankind but also to glorify the higher being. However, hell is a punishment for those who do evil deeds. Medjo for me, it could also prove dangerous if there's no hell because ang magiging mentality ng tao who would want to do evil deeds, kung makalusot siya sa justice or law, libre na siya. However with the concept of hell, he's still afraid to do evil deeds because he knows he will suffer in the afterlife.
Yes sir I totally agree with you that there is nobody we know who's been there and returned. But I know that of all the religions of the world, only Christianity, thru Jesus Christ, has risen from the dead and brought back to life with witnesses.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 29, 2017 at 09:00 PM
That cannot be answered kung which is more. The point of the bible is not how many water came from the sky or under the earth but why it happened.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Thank you for that. But some believers view it differently. And i wanna know how they view it.
Post by: DPT on Apr 29, 2017 at 09:27 PM
Are you sure they are fiction?
when i was young we had an experience where our car got some trouble running when are coming back from old tandang sora (back when it is still full of balete trees). and there was this bright light at the back even when we are the only one on the road on the way to quezon memorial. Our drive becomes normal only when we reach the circle. My uncle said he saw a big creature like a tikbalang took a ride with us when leaving their house in tandang sora.
another experience is when i was a new born again. barely a month i suddenly woke up around 3am when i felt a huge creature seating on me cursing me and mocking me being christian. it looks exactly like a kapre. almost choke me to death until I remember the power of the name of Jesus. It went away after I commanded it to get off me in Jesus name.
So are they real? of course they are. Who are they? not the fallen angels but the nephilim that died in the flood and those annihilated by the Israelites. They became disembodied spirits also known as demons.
I respect your whole believe system.
But the thing, truth has a funny thing. For something to be considered something to be truth. It should not only claimed to have happened. It should be reproducible but also can be validated or verified.
Religion lore has done a great job of distanced themselves from UFOs, ancient giants, other scientifically unproven myths.
The bible is a heavily edited document which is a mix of, history emblemished lore, and story telling.
If you ask any knowledgeable person about the bible. It is just a collection of books written by different persons of different time period stitched together. The condition a particular book was written no one knows for most part.
The usual answer is " the writer was inspired by the holy ghost when it was written"
The version of the bible that people read now came into being 3 centuries after supposedly christ death.
Post by: DPT on Apr 29, 2017 at 09:43 PM
Sir, you are correct. Humanity can think that way logically. That is, there is no heaven or hell. However, it's is also logical to think that there's heaven and hell. With regards to the logic of the existence of an intellectual design which points to a higher being, there is a thread here with the arguments already laid. With regards to the existence of heaven or hell, I think it is logical din because in the absence of the knowledge of the afterlife, there are also people who, since I'm the absence of said knowledge, doesn't hold himself accountable kaya they can possibly and intentionally do "bad" things or violate our law. Why? Probably because kapag hindi siya nahuli ng law and walang punishment, lusot na siya. However, if he believes heaven and hell, heaven is a reward for those who believe in the creator of heaven and do good things not only for the benefit of mankind but also to glorify the higher being. However, hell is a punishment for those who do evil deeds. Medjo for me, it could also prove dangerous if there's no hell because ang magiging mentality ng tao who would want to do evil deeds, kung makalusot siya sa justice or law, libre na siya. However with the concept of hell, he's still afraid to do evil deeds because he knows he will suffer in the afterlife.
Yes sir I totally agree with you that there is nobody we know who's been there and returned. But I know that of all the religions of the world, only Christianity, thru Jesus Christ, has risen from the dead and brought back to life with witnesses.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
IMHO, Fearing supernatural retribution is not the way to go about trying to make good people.
Here is the thing that we should be aware of;
Beside killing view morality on things differently.
We are bias creatures. We do nasty/horrible things and still feel good because we can fool ourselves.
You can see rich people who treat his country men like crap in churches because he believes or fool himself he is not doing anything wrong.
Corrupt government people who steal for their families and still feels good because he fooled himself that he is doing a good thing because it is for his family.
Hypocrites who says government and religions should be separate but lobby using their voting block to further their agenda and still feels god because they are doing gods work.
My point is, even with heaven and hell. People will still do things even if it is wrong as long it makes them feel good.
This is actually scientifically proven.
Post by: Moks007 on Apr 29, 2017 at 10:20 PM
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.…
Post by: DPT on Apr 29, 2017 at 10:30 PM
That is why in Matthew 7:14 it says
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.…
It could be anyone. Even the present churches. It is soo vague maybe that is why it is the favorite cliche line for any disagreement.
Monopoly of the religious franchise is more worrisome for me.
It is even right to say their way or the highway?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2017 at 10:43 PM
IMHO, Fearing supernatural retribution is not the way to go about trying to make good people.
Here is the thing that we should be aware of;
Beside killing view morality on things differently.
We are bias creatures. We do nasty/horrible things and still feel good because we can fool ourselves.
You can see rich people who treat his country men like crap in churches because he believes or fool himself he is not doing anything wrong.
Corrupt government people who steal for their families and still feels good because he fooled himself that he is doing a good thing because it is for his family.
Hypocrites who says government and religions should be separate but lobby using their voting block to further their agenda and still feels god because they are doing gods work.
My point is, even with heaven and hell. People will still do things even if it is wrong as long it makes them feel good.
This is actually scientifically proven.
Yes sir I agree with you sir. With or without religion, people would still do evil things. No question about that sir. Joining any religion may or may not help in the being of a person because it is still a choice.
However to be specific, I strongly believe that Christianity and it's beliefs MAY (sir no offense meant with the caps lock but just emphasizing that it's not a guarantee) "help" in letting some people know that there is a retribution in the afterlife.
You have cited very good examples of religion and non belief of a religion's possible consequences. And since you said that the fear of retribution is not the way to go in making good people, do you mind if I ask for your opinion as to how it is for you to make good people?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2017 at 10:45 PM
That is not true sir. I would suggest that you read the history of the bible and how each book came into being before you conclude your opinion.
I respect your whole believe system.
But the thing, truth has a funny thing. For something to be considered something to be truth. It should not only claimed to have happened. It should be reproducible but also can be validated or verified.
Religion lore has done a great job of distanced themselves from UFOs, ancient giants, other scientifically unproven myths.
The bible is a heavily edited document which is a mix of, history emblemished lore, and story telling.
If you ask any knowledgeable person about the bible. It is just a collection of books written by different persons of different time period stitched together. The condition a particular book was written no one knows for most part.
The usual answer is " the writer was inspired by the holy ghost when it was written"
The version of the bible that people read now came into being 3 centuries after supposedly christ death.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2017 at 10:49 PM
Thank you for that. But some believers view it differently. And i wanna know how they view it.Medjo sir. Kaya most of the time I try to understand faith and the bible logically. I use to have those questions and queries like yours. However when I slowly try to understand the bible and why it's logical, I also try to interpret it in a logical manner that would be acceptable to me and to others.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2017 at 10:50 PM
That is why in Matthew 7:14 it saysNapanuod ko ito sa movie na "Devil's Advocate" Hehe!
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.…
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2017 at 11:39 PM
That is why in Matthew 7:14 it says
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.…
It could be anyone. Even the present churches. It is soo vague maybe that is why it is the favorite cliche line for any disagreement.
Monopoly of the religious franchise is more worrisome for me.
It is even right to say their way or the highway?
To better understand what that verse means, allow me to quote the succeeding verse
16 By their fruits you will get knowledge of them. Do men get grapes from thorns or figs from thistles?
The verses does not tell the believers to just be on guard for false prophets but how. Meaning thru their fruits (actions and decisions) believers will know if he is a false prophet.
The book was written around 50ad and it was part of the "Sermon on the Mount". It is part of Jesus' teachings and some clarification from the Old Testament. The writer was talking to his jewish christian listeners retelling to them the life of Jesus and teaches them to be careful in believing what they hear.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: dpogs on Apr 30, 2017 at 06:19 AM
I respect your whole believe system.
But the thing, truth has a funny thing. For something to be considered something to be truth. It should not only claimed to have happened. It should be reproducible but also can be validated or verified.
Religion lore has done a great job of distanced themselves from UFOs, ancient giants, other scientifically unproven myths.
The bible is a heavily edited document which is a mix of, history emblemished lore, and story telling.
If you ask any knowledgeable person about the bible. It is just a collection of books written by different persons of different time period stitched together. The condition a particular book was written no one knows for most part.
The usual answer is " the writer was inspired by the holy ghost when it was written"
The version of the bible that people read now came into being 3 centuries after supposedly christ death.
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews
11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews
By faith noah buold an ark even though he doesnt have any idea about flood or never seen flood in hisife.
By faith abraham go to a place he doesnt know if it exist and where.
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 30, 2017 at 09:22 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 30, 2017 at 09:41 AM
By faith? Didn't god communicate to them directly?
building an ark without any idea what flood is - that is faith
going to a place you dont even know if it exiat - that is faith
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 30, 2017 at 10:02 AM
Post by: dpogs on Apr 30, 2017 at 10:35 AM
Obedience is better term.
Yes. An obedient faith. :) :) :)
Post by: JT on Apr 30, 2017 at 10:39 AM
Obedience is better term.
My definition of faith ...
Faith is believing and obeying so
even when it doesn't seems so
so that it will be so
because God say so
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 30, 2017 at 10:49 AM
My definition of faith ...
Faith is believing and obeying so
even when it doesn't seems so
so that it will be so
because God say so
Or it can be satan.
Post by: JT on Apr 30, 2017 at 12:09 PM
Or it can be satan.
what do you mean by satan? is it how to know if from God or from Satan?
Post by: bumblebee on Apr 30, 2017 at 12:12 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 30, 2017 at 02:36 PM
My definition of faith ...
Faith is believing and obeying so
even when it doesn't seems so
so that it will be so
because God say so
Yes. An obedient faith. :) :) :)
Obedience is better term.
Yes sir. I'm the context of Christianity, faith works hand in hand with believe, trust and obedience. One cannot do without the other.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: JT on May 01, 2017 at 07:43 AM
Or it can be satan.
If the message or voice is from God, you can cross reference it with the bible. If it contradicts from what the bible says, then it's from somebody else.
The scripture was written so that man will know the true nature and character of God as well as His Words. Bible is complete and perfect. There is a warning if we add or remove anything from it (referring to it's messages).
Galatians 1:8 says "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
Post by: ninjababez® on May 01, 2017 at 07:55 AM
If the message or voice is from God, you can cross reference it with the bible. If it contradicts from what the bible says, then it's from somebody else.bro di ba, ganyan din noon; kontra yun teachings ni jesus sa mga jews. i know you mentioned bible, pero baka may mag emerge na bagong messiah? age of aquarius kumbaga.
Post by: RU9 on May 01, 2017 at 08:01 AM
If the message or voice is from God, you can cross reference it with the bible. If it contradicts from what the bible says, then it's from somebody else.
Can you cite examples of "the message or voice from God" which we can cross reference with the bible?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 01, 2017 at 10:08 AM
My definition of faith ...
Faith is believing and obeying so
even when it doesn't seems so
so that it will be so
because God say so
Or it can be satan.
If the message or voice is from God, you can cross reference it with the bible. If it contradicts from what the bible says, then it's from somebody else.
Can you cite examples of "the message or voice from God" which we can cross reference with the bible?
Sir here's how the conversation flowed. I think he was merely mentioning about knowing how a message can be studied so you'd know if it's from God.
Post by: JT on May 01, 2017 at 12:04 PM
Can you cite examples of "the message or voice from God" which we can cross reference with the bible?
Why don't you give the example and we will tell you if it conforms with the bible. But I don't think it matters to you anyway if its from God or not because you are your own God.
That is why you adopted Ayn Rand views "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
No worries, the bible is clear that not everyone will believe . 1 Cor 1:18 says "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
Post by: bumblebee on May 01, 2017 at 03:20 PM
Post by: RU9 on May 01, 2017 at 03:30 PM
Why don't you give the example and we will tell you if it conforms with the bible.
None.
because
(http://www.rethinkingourstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the-bible-is-true.gif)
Post by: dpogs on May 01, 2017 at 06:08 PM
None.
because
(http://www.rethinkingourstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the-bible-is-true.gif)
The Bible - a book of books consisting of 66 books from over 40 writers written over 1500 years most of them dont know each other and yet their message are the same.
History, science, philosophy, archeology, consistency shows the Bible is true.
Post by: bumblebee on May 01, 2017 at 06:47 PM
History, science, philosophy, archeology, consistency shows the Bible is true.
Holy macaroni.
Post by: docelmo on May 01, 2017 at 10:05 PM
- The bible prophesied that the people of Israel shall be scattered and then become a nation once again. This was fulfilled in 1948 when the nation of Israel was reestablished once again after they were dispersed for more than 2,500 years. What are the odds that the writers of the bible accurately prophecy this event?
- The Books of Acts written by Luke mentions about 30 countries, 54 cities this is period when the apostles were spreading the Good news. These cities have now been identified by archeology.
- The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls proved that the bible have not changed.
- The discovery of the Pool of Bethesda is another proof in the bible's archeological accuracy.
-and historians like Tacitus and Josephus has confirmed and wrote about Jesus and his death by Pilate.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 01, 2017 at 11:08 PM
Holy macaroni.Yes sir! Despite the macaroni and the spaghetti, it is proven true.
Kaya nga i also approach the bible as truth and logical. Madalas kasi sir we limit ourselves to a small picture but when we consider the bigger picture, or when we "zoom out" we get to understand it better. Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 01, 2017 at 11:10 PM
There are many evidences that the Bible is a reliable and accurate book. Let me just mention few...Not to mention the hundred of copies produced pero after cross referencing each copy, everything was in sync. Tana kayo sir, we should start with Josephus.
- The bible prophesied that the people of Israel shall be scattered and then become a nation once again. This was fulfilled in 1948 when the nation of Israel was reestablished once again after they were dispersed for more than 2,500 years. What are the odds that the writers of the bible accurately prophecy this event?
- The Books of Acts written by Luke mentions about 30 countries, 54 cities this is period when the apostles were spreading the Good news. These cities have now been identified by archeology.
- The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls proved that the bible have not changed.
- The discovery of the Pool of Bethesda is another proof in the bible's archeological accuracy.
-and historians like Tacitus and Josephus has confirmed and wrote about Jesus and his death by Pilate.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: JT on May 02, 2017 at 06:32 AM
None. because ...
Definitely not in circles for me. What made me believe the bible is the Word of God is not because the bible claims it is but by my own common sense.
It is the only book I know who has a better explanation for the beginning and the end of all things.
The bible means "collection of books" which was written from different generations by different writers with different professions. And yet with continuity and harmony as if there is only one author. 2000 years difference when the 1st and the last book was written so it is impossible it is just man-made but coming from an eternal and very intellectual being(even just for this reason deserve to be called God). Can you tell me the difference between movies authored, written and directed by different people(like the spiderman,superman,batman series) and those from one author like Hobbits+Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter series? The bible was written by different men but same author from the very beginning.
The prophetic words in it is with 100% accuracy. From the past, present and even future events. Any error invalidates its integrity and it is consistent as far as I know so I continue to believe.
There was indeed an historical record(not just biblical) of Jesus Christ, the central figure of the bible. The historical record also claims His teachings, miracles, death and resurrection which means Jesus is not a liar and not a lunatic but Jesus is Lord as what the bible says.
And most of all, it has help me transform my life, my character, and my future. There was a big difference with my old and with my new life in the Lord Jesus. Just like in +2 Cor 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."
And this is the greatest miracle when you truly believe in the God of the bible.
Post by: bumblebee on May 02, 2017 at 09:03 AM
Yes sir! Despite the macaroni and the spaghetti, it is proven true.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
I'll wait till you guys sort out your macaronis and spaghettis then I'll join ;)
Would anyone want to start with basic shapes? Like, is the earth flat, domed or round?
Post by: rascal101 on May 02, 2017 at 09:26 AM
Post by: RU9 on May 02, 2017 at 01:16 PM
The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.
According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God.
http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm
Post by: rascal101 on May 02, 2017 at 02:01 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 02, 2017 at 02:13 PM
I'll wait till you guys sort out your macaronis and spaghettis then I'll join ;)There will always be spaghetti and macaroni. Hindi pa natin pinaguusapan ang sauce.
Would anyone want to start with basic shapes? Like, is the earth flat, domed or round?
you'll join meaning you'll join the conversation or you'll join one denomination?Somebody said " Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity".
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: bumblebee on May 02, 2017 at 02:26 PM
There will always be spaghetti and macaroni. Hindi pa natin pinaguusapan ang sauce.
Somebody said " Unity does not necessarily mean uniformity".
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
I'll join the conversation. So, is the earth also spherical for you?
Rascal, by round I mean like a ball, for discussion purposes. You are, of course, correct.
Post by: t-bone on May 02, 2017 at 02:41 PM
According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
Our theology professor said that some gospels were deemed too strange, too magical, too radical and therefore excluded by the "committee".
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 02, 2017 at 03:11 PM
I'll join the conversation. So, is the earth also spherical for you?Yes sir spherical, globe shape.
Rascal, by round I mean like a ball, for discussion purposes. You are, of course, correct.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: docelmo on May 02, 2017 at 04:23 PM
This is cut and paste. Factual or not?
The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.
According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.
Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God.
http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm
As has been already mentioned in this thread, the bible as we now know it took about 1600 years, 66 books and 40 distinct authors to complete. If God had nothing to do with the writing of 66 books, then this would be the greatest deception by a "group of man" in history!
But the proof in the Bible authenticity is it's accuracy found in non-biblical sources, non-biblical historians account and archeological evidences....and we find a lot of evidence for this.
By the end of the 1st century AD, the books of the new testament were already being written by the apostles or those close to them, most were quoting the old testament which was already in wide circulation and accepted by this time. By the 2nd and 3rd century the new testament were considered the new covenant. These were widely accepted as "inspired writings" by the people. But to protect the scriptures from various forgeries and heresies there was a need to formally list the 27 books of the New Testament.
Thus by the 4th century the final composition of the Bible was completed. Each book in order to be accepted must pass 3 criteria: Apostolic Authorship, conformity w/ "rule of faith" and must have "continuous acceptance and usage. If a book fails in any one of the 3 it was not accepted.
The Bible's integrity and authenticity does not rest on those who formalized the book but rather on it's content from historical perspective(people of Israel) and world history(book of Daniel), prophecy about and by Jesus and for present and future events foretold in Revelation. No man can claim sole authorship of these books. There is only one who has claimed authorship and the writers have identified the true author by the phrase "Thus sayeth the Lord".
Post by: JT on May 02, 2017 at 04:36 PM
I'll join the conversation. So, is the earth also spherical for you?
Rascal, by round I mean like a ball, for discussion purposes. You are, of course, correct.
Ano na nga ba tamang shape, in ancient times it is flat. then becomes round circle, and now some scientist claims to be pear shape.
Post by: bumblebee on May 02, 2017 at 04:39 PM
What do you say?
Post by: JT on May 02, 2017 at 04:41 PM
Ang tanong eh kung masama ba talaga gumamit ng pera?
not money but the love of money is what the bible says the root of all evil.
Post by: JT on May 02, 2017 at 04:43 PM
Pear? Never heard that one before.
What do you say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTOE4Ar0Dfo
Post by: JeromeA on May 02, 2017 at 04:44 PM
not money but the love of money is what the bible says the root of all evil.
+1
Post by: ninjababez® on May 03, 2017 at 07:14 AM
Holy macaroni.pastafarian ba yan?
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 07:22 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTOE4Ar0Dfo
Thanks. Another one that's taken out of context and blown up.
How about you? What's the shape of the earth?
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 09:16 AM
Thanks. Another one that's taken out of context and blown up.
How about you? What's the shape of the earth?
How was it out of context and blown up?
Anyway, earth's shape is an interesting topic that deserve another thread.
Personally I don't have a firm stand on this because the bible does not clearly says the shape of our world.
And NASA with all the rest of the scientist does not come with the definitive proof of the shape either as the photos are not genuine (photoshopped even the latest ones). And the statements are conflicting and changing every generations. And their space travels are questionable.
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 09:23 AM
How was it out of context and blown up?
Because this is a pear.
(https://www.organicfacts.net/wp-content/uploads/pear.jpg)
If the bible isn't clear about the shape, then we move on then.
How old is the earth?
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 09:51 AM
Because this is a pear.
If the bible isn't clear about the shape, then we move on then. How old is the earth?
So any idea why that scientist says pear is the actual shape of the earth when NASA's pictures clearly shows a round ball???
Anyway, there was no accurate measurement for the earth's age. Even carbon dating is not reliable. A newly dead animal can come up dead for 600 yrs with this validation process.
Biblically, Earth's age seems to be between 6000-7000 years old in our Adamic age . However, there is that theory of pre-Adamic age (before man) where Earth already existed before and was restored by God from chaos mentioned in Genesis.
What about you? What do you think?
Post by: dpogs on May 03, 2017 at 10:02 AM
Quote
"Biblically, Earths age seems to be between 6000 - 70000 years old"
andoon na ang salitang "biblically" kaya ano pa nga ba ang paniniwalaan ko - I believe the earth still young (6-7K years old). :)
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 10:07 AM
6000-7000 years of man you say. We'll get to that. Earth muna. How old?
Post by: dpogs on May 03, 2017 at 10:11 AM
The earth is probably around 42km wider below the equator. In context, that's hardly noticeable. The earth isn't perfectly round as Mt Mayon isn't a perfect cone. I hope you get the idea.
6000-7000 years of man you say. We'll get to that. Earth muna. How old?
Earth is 6000 - 7000 years old.
Less than 10,000 years old.
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 10:13 AM
Earth is 6000 - 7000 years old.
Hindi, meron pa raw pre-adamic age. Yun yung tinatanong ko sa kanya,
Ikaw ba, 6k to 7k, all in na?
Post by: dpogs on May 03, 2017 at 10:15 AM
Hindi, meron pa raw pre-adamic age. Yun yung tinatanong ko sa kanya,
Ikaw ba, 6k to 7k, all in na?
6k to 10k - I believe in literal seven day (24 hour/day) creation
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 10:26 AM
Hindi, meron pa raw pre-adamic age. Yun yung tinatanong ko sa kanya,
Ikaw ba, 6k to 7k, all in na?
I got nothing to say further on pre-adamic age as the bible is not directly saying that. And yes, 6k-7k years old is my approximate guess.
What say you? So where are you coming from?
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 10:40 AM
Do all of you Bible believers agree with 6-7k, 10k?
Post by: t-bone on May 03, 2017 at 10:43 AM
Earth is 6000 - 7000 years old.
Less than 10,000 years old.
When did the the Dinosaurs appear within the 10,000 year life of the Earth?
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 10:51 AM
I believe it's 4.5B years old.
Do all of you Bible believers agree with 6-7k, 10k?
Any proof? Or you just want us to simply believe in your word? or is it because majority believe it is 4.5b years old so that automatically the correct age?
Not all bible believers are particular nor interested with Earth's age. That's just majoring on the minor. What is major in Christianity is Jesus Christ.
Here's simple chart for the 6-7k age. (http://ichthys.com/timeline.gif)
Take note that no one knows the end date so this is just for illustrations assuming Christ Millennial (1000 yrs) reign as part for the 7 days period.
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 11:01 AM
Any proof? Or you just want us to simply believe in your word? or is it because majority believe it is 4.5b years old so that automatically the correct age?
Proof is easily google-able. But I got the idea when I was 11 from a science book.
Quote
Not all bible believers are particular nor interested with Earth's age. That's just majoring on the minor. What is major in Christianity is Jesus Christ.
Majoring the minor? More like dodging the question ;D You should at least get the basics sorted out, right?
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 11:05 AM
When did the the Dinosaurs appear within the 10,000 year life of the Earth?
Does anyone really knows? Everything about their period is just a theory.
Are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? There has been much discussion on the topic specifically involving verses in Job 40-41. Job is considered to be the oldest book of the Bible. Scholars, in studying Job's longevity (he lived up to 140 years), descriptions of his wealth and household, believe he was most likely alive after the time of Noah, but before the time of Abraham.
Behemoth: Job 40:15-24 speaks of a "behemoth." No one is really sure what it is, but read its description.
15 “Look now at the behemoth,which I made along with you; he eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, and his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, his ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, and all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, in a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade; the willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage, yet he is not disturbed; he is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24 Though he takes it in his eyes, or one pierces his nose with a snare."
The way the "behemoth" is described, doesn't it almost sound like a dinosaur? Perhaps one of the sauropods? Some will argue these verses are referring to the hippopotamus or elephant. However, they run into the problem of explaning vs 17, since the tails of both animals are...well, far from looking like a cedar tree (let along moving like one). Their tails more resemble switches.
Leviathan: In Job 41:1-2,7,12-32, the "Leviathan" is another creature described that has been hard to find a modern equivalent.
1“Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook, or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?
2 Can you put a reed through his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook?...
7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons, or his head with fishing spears?...
12 “I will not conceal his limbs, his mighty power, or his graceful proportions.
13 Who can remove his outer coat? Who can approach him with a double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?
15 His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal;
16 One is so near another that no air can come between them;
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted.
18 His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth.
22 Strength dwells in his neck, and sorrow dances before him.
23 The folds of his flesh are joined together; they are firm on him and cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as hard as stone, even as hard as the lower millstone.
25 When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid; because of his crashings they are beside themselves.
26 Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin.
27 He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him.
29Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins.
30 His undersides are like sharp potsherds; he spreads pointed marks in the mire.
31 He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He leaves a shining wake behind him; one would think the deep had white hair.
Some have translated the Leviathan to be a "crocodile," because of the large number currently present in the region. However, the crocodile pales in comparison to the description given to the Leviathan. Do crocodiles really raise themselves? Aren't the underbellies of crocodiles smooth rather than "sharp potsherds?" Does the crocodile really move fast enough and graceful enough to leave a "shining wake"? The Leviathan is also mentioned in the following verses: Psalms 74:14, 104:25-26, Is 27:1.
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 11:06 AM
Proof is easily google-able. But I got the idea when I was 11 from a science book.
Majoring the minor? More like dodging the question ;D You should at least get the basics sorted out, right?
Your source of truth is GOOGLE????
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 11:07 AM
Your source of truth is GOOGLE????
No, you actually click on the links. You know how to use it, right? ;D
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 11:15 AM
No, you actually click on the links. You know how to use it, right? ;D
Ahhh googlemaster. You know web contains different information and not all agree to one another right? So how do you reconcile or confirm it is the truth?
History and science text books are being revised as some facts are changing on different generations. So is there a definitive facts about these things you are putting your faith with?
Post by: bumblebee on May 03, 2017 at 11:22 AM
Ahhh googlemaster. You know web contains different information and not all agree to one another right? So how do you reconcile or confirm it is the truth?
History and science text books are being revised as some facts are changing on different generations. So is there a definitive facts about these things you are putting your faith with?
Actually, if you visit websites of schools, universities and scientific institutions, they pretty much agree with each other.
But now that you mentioned it, why is God allowing all these misinformation to be taught in schools, which I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, you also paid for?
Post by: JT on May 03, 2017 at 11:27 AM
Actually, if you visit websites of schools, universities and scientific institutions, they pretty much agree with each other.
But now that you mentioned it, why is God allowing all these misinformation to be taught in schools, which I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, you also paid for?
God has already had it written down for the things man should know what is important in life.
But man keeps trying on to figure it out more by himself. Then formulates these so called facts which keeps on changing because they are all theories not truth. No one can establish the truth except God.
Man has pursued knowing the creation rather than knowing the creator.
Post by: t-bone on May 03, 2017 at 11:35 AM
God has already had it written down for the things man should know what is important in life.
But man keeps trying on to figure it out more by himself. Then formulates these so called facts which keeps on changing because they are all theories not truth. No one can establish the truth except God.
So you are not in favor of Science?
Post by: JeromeA on May 03, 2017 at 11:38 AM
God has already had it written down for the things man should know what is important in life.
But man keeps trying on to figure it out more by himself. Then formulates these so called facts which keeps on changing because they are all theories not truth. No one can establish the truth except God.
Man has pursued knowing the creation rather than knowing the creator.
hindi dapat magkahiwalay ang bible at science. im not ang expert on this matter pero how sure you are na buong buo ang nakasulat sa bible?
napanood ko ang isa sa mga documentary ni stephen hawking. malaking factor ang science kesa sa paniniwala ng tao.
Post by: JeromeA on May 03, 2017 at 11:44 AM
during vikings time paniniwala nila pag nagkakaroon ng solar eclipse kinakain daw ng dragon ang araw. that's why nagtatambol sila para mapalayas iyon. ang then pag nawala na ang eclipse natutuwa sila kasi success ang ginawa nila. but then kalaunan nagkaroon ng paliwanag si aristotle (correct me if im wrong) about sa nangyayaring eclipse ayun natauhan ang mga tao.
same thing lang din. bulag ang bible pag walang science..
Post by: docelmo on May 03, 2017 at 11:54 PM
bulag ang bible pag walang science..Sir, hindi po bulag ang bible pag walang science. Science is confirming what the bible said about the physical world. The bible is by no means a book a science, it is a book about the nature of man, nature of God and our relationship to Him. But when it mentions the physical word, it is accurate.
One concrete example is in the book of Genesis, here the bible says time, light, universe and all matter had a Beginning! The bible even mentions the nature of infection and importance of sanitation. These are just a few of the bible's description of the physical world that has been confirmed by science...
Post by: ninjababez® on May 04, 2017 at 01:56 AM
So any idea why that scientist says pear is the actual shape of the earth when NASA's pictures clearly shows a round ball???eto yata ibig nya sabihin bro
Anyway, there was no accurate measurement for the earth's age. Even carbon dating is not reliable. A newly dead animal can come up dead for 600 yrs with this validation process.
Biblically, Earth's age seems to be between 6000-7000 years old in our Adamic age . However, there is that theory of pre-Adamic age (before man) where Earth already existed before and was restored by God from chaos mentioned in Genesis.
What about you? What do you think?
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bffb9021ae5ac065d00843b424cf72aa-c)
How would life on Earth been (https://www.quora.com/How-would-life-on-Earth-been-if-Earths-actual-potato-form-was-more-like-an-egg)
Post by: JT on May 04, 2017 at 10:32 AM
So you are not in favor of Science?
Its not that I'm not in favor of Science but for me the bible is above Science. Not all that science says are the truth as like I said it is changing unlike the bible is constant throughout the ages.
But there are some examples of the harmony between science and the Bible. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis. 1:1) This was written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit about 1500 B.C. In 1820 A.D. a man named Hubert Spencer gave the world five scientific principles by which man may study the unknown. They are time, force, energy, space, and matter. However, Moses, by inspiration, gave us those scientific principles in Genesis 1:1.
"In the beginning" --> time;
"God"--> force;
"created" --> energy;
"the heavens" --> space;
"and the earth" --> matter.
All of Spencer's scientific principles are right there in Genesis 1:1 which was written very long time ago which science just identified recently.
And another point for me. Science (or man) may establish facts but only God can establish the Truth.
For example:
One of our pastor was visited by His inlaws(from manila) in Auckland last year. During their stay here, the father-in-law had an heart attack, lungs collapsed and kidney failure all at the same time. Was rushed to the hospital and all the doctors says He wont last the night.
Now that is a FACT because there is a medical evidence. However, the bible says "by His stripes we are healed" and the "prayer of the righteous avails much". Given these TRUTHS written in the bible, every leaders and elders of the church prayed that night.
Not only he survived the night, he was discharged the next day as if nothing happened and able to stay longer here to complete their holidays. Every doctors in that hospital says it is impossible and they say our faith really works.
So how did that happen?
Another example:
While I was still in Singapore in 2010, we visited a couple in hospital with their 6 year old daughter having chemo for leukemia. The child is already too weak and doctor says max 6 months to live.
Again, the doctor is not lying as there are medical proof. Again, the bible says "by His stripes we are healed" and the "prayer of the righteous avails much". And after the church prays for healing, the child was completely healed after 6 mos without further chemo. The doctors got baffled with her case and close the case as completely no more indication of cancer.
Instead of dying, becomes so much alive and now a very healthy 13 yrs old.
Any scientific explanation for these two cases?
Post by: JT on May 04, 2017 at 10:40 AM
eto yata ibig nya sabihin bro
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bffb9021ae5ac065d00843b424cf72aa-c)
How would life on Earth been (https://www.quora.com/How-would-life-on-Earth-been-if-Earths-actual-potato-form-was-more-like-an-egg)
Mas mukha yatang heart kaysa earth ...
But how could it change so fast into that shape if NASA claims these are actual pictures of the earth? the recent being in 2015.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JfGKtL1zA4M/Vb-ldA58iDI/AAAAAAAAQJM/lV-zDVqgd8E/s400/zz1%252B%2525282%252529.jpg)
Which picture is telling the truth?
From NASA web says it is pear-shape in some ways so somehow it will show in the pictures right?
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11818.html
Post by: bumblebee on May 04, 2017 at 10:45 AM
Post by: JT on May 04, 2017 at 10:47 AM
Who is Hubert Spencer?
Anyare sa pagiging googlemaster mo?
Post by: bumblebee on May 04, 2017 at 10:55 AM
Anyare sa pagiging googlemaster mo?
I did. Tatanong ko ba kung nakita ko sya? ;D
Baka naman imbento mo lang ;D
Post by: JT on May 04, 2017 at 11:47 AM
I did. Tatanong ko ba kung nakita ko sya? ;D
Baka naman imbento mo lang ;D
The bible showed us how to response to someone not really seeking the truth but just want confrontation.
Jesus said "neither will i tell you ..."
Post by: dpogs on May 04, 2017 at 11:52 AM
Its not that I'm not in favor of Science but for me the bible is above Science. Not all that science says are the truth as like I said it is changing unlike the bible is constant throughout the ages.
But there are some examples of the harmony between science and the Bible. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis. 1:1) This was written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit about 1500 B.C. In 1820 A.D. a man named Hubert Spencer gave the world five scientific principles by which man may study the unknown. They are time, force, energy, space, and matter. However, Moses, by inspiration, gave us those scientific principles in Genesis 1:1.
"In the beginning" --> time;
"God"--> force;
"created" --> energy;
"the heavens" --> space;
"and the earth" --> matter.
All of Spencer's scientific principles are right there in Genesis 1:1 which was written very long time ago which science just identified recently.
And another point for me. Science (or man) may establish facts but only God can establish the Truth.
For example:
One of our pastor was visited by His inlaws(from manila) in Auckland last year. During their stay here, the father-in-law had an heart attack, lungs collapsed and kidney failure all at the same time. Was rushed to the hospital and all the doctors says He wont last the night.
Now that is a FACT because there is a medical evidence. However, the bible says "by His stripes we are healed" and the "prayer of the righteous avails much". Given these TRUTHS written in the bible, every leaders and elders of the church prayed that night.
Not only he survived the night, he was discharged the next day as if nothing happened and able to stay longer here to complete their holidays. Every doctors in that hospital says it is impossible and they say our faith really works.
So how did that happen?
Another example:
While I was still in Singapore in 2010, we visited a couple in hospital with their 6 year old daughter having chemo for leukemia. The child is already too weak and doctor says max 6 months to live.
Again, the doctor is not lying as there are medical proof. Again, the bible says "by His stripes we are healed" and the "prayer of the righteous avails much". And after the church prays for healing, the child was completely healed after 6 mos without further chemo. The doctors got baffled with her case and close the case as completely no more indication of cancer.
Instead of dying, becomes so much alive and now a very healthy 13 yrs old.
Any scientific explanation for these two cases?
The power of prayer. The most neglected area of our Christian life.
Post by: bumblebee on May 04, 2017 at 12:02 PM
The bible showed us how to response to someone not really seeking the truth but just want confrontation.
Jesus said "neither will i tell you ..."
LOL. That's the best you got? And if you get ganged up you'll raise Matt 10:22?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not seeking your "truth". This a religion thread, questions will be asked and may even be debated on. And it's quite hypocritical of you to say I'm confrontational when you're the one calling names.
Post by: JT on May 04, 2017 at 12:24 PM
LOL. That's the best you got? And if you get ganged up you'll raise Matt 10:22?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not seeking your "truth". This a religion thread, questions will be asked and may even be DEBATED on. And it's quite hypocritical of you to say I'm CONFRONTATIONAL when you're the one calling names.
Dissappointed? Nah, your response is perfect for me to explain many things including responding to such attitude. So thank you.
And when you are back, please google the difference between debate and confrontation then post it in here to have a clear understanding if you do have a case in your claims
Post by: bumblebee on May 04, 2017 at 01:13 PM
Post by: hotrod on May 04, 2017 at 06:17 PM
Baka naman Herbert Spencer hindi Hubert :)
Post by: bumblebee on May 04, 2017 at 06:37 PM
Post by: JT on May 04, 2017 at 07:49 PM
Why? You trust google now?
I'm sorry, I know now na mahina ang pang intindi mo. And I need to be more considerate.
Did I say I don't trust google ? Or what I said is it contains both true and false information so who decides which is right?
Have you already googled the difference between debate and confrontations? Why don't you review your replies and see if they qualify as debate.
Post by: bumblebee on May 04, 2017 at 07:58 PM
I'm sorry, I know now na mahina ang pang intindi mo. And I need to be more considerate.
Thank you. That's very christian of you ;D
Post by: JT on May 04, 2017 at 08:17 PM
Thank you. That's very christian of you ;D
Just went thru your recent posts and did not really find any meaningful nor really informative nor intellectual reply that adds values. Just side comments and criticisms.
Matthew 7:6 teaches us “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces".
So no point going thru this argument further. Good luck na lang sa iyo,
Post by: bumblebee on May 04, 2017 at 08:25 PM
Post by: ninjababez® on May 04, 2017 at 09:13 PM
Mas mukha yatang heart kaysa earth ...bro yun posted ko na link shows earth without the water bodies, hence the odd shape.
But how could it change so fast into that shape if NASA claims these are actual pictures of the earth? the recent being in 2015.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JfGKtL1zA4M/Vb-ldA58iDI/AAAAAAAAQJM/lV-zDVqgd8E/s400/zz1%252B%2525282%252529.jpg)
Which picture is telling the truth?
From NASA web says it is pear-shape in some ways so somehow it will show in the pictures right?
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11818.html
Post by: majoe on May 04, 2017 at 09:15 PM
I got nothing to say further on pre-adamic age as the bible is not directly saying that. And yes, 6k-7k years old is my approximate guess.
6,000 years (or 5,964 years to be exact) is not the age of the earth. it's the age of mankind starting from creation of Adam to present.
the actual age of the earth is around 4.567 billion years. the bible supports this with some sort of calculation.
Post by: ninjababez® on May 04, 2017 at 09:25 PM
the actual age of the earth is around 4.567 billion years. the bible supports this with some sort of calculation.bro baka pwede ma explain mo ito, or kung may link ka. may mga videos din ako pinanonood online; mga religious groups debunking carbon dating.
Post by: JT on May 05, 2017 at 04:44 AM
bro yun posted ko na link shows earth without the water bodies, hence the odd shape.
Actually I'm more inclined to believe the picture (and article) you posted rather than the perfect circle and esp that pear shape from Neil DeGrasse-Tyson (as latest claim from NASA).
NASA claims to have thousands of satellites in outer space yet not able to produce an actual picture of the earth.
Post by: ninjababez® on May 05, 2017 at 05:41 AM
actually, yun thousands of satellite na yun di talaga makukunan ng pic ang earth, kasi di naman sya ganun kalayo from earth. imagine taking a selfie pic, tapos braso mo singhaba lang ng sa kangaroo. pero meron naman na-launch na mga probes, mas malayo pa sa moon; bakit nga naman walang picture ang mga ito sa likod ano?
NASA claims to have thousands of satellites in outer space yet not able to produce an actual picture of the earth.
Post by: JeromeA on May 05, 2017 at 06:15 AM
actually, yun thousands of satellite na yun di talaga makukunan ng pic ang earth, kasi di naman sya ganun kalayo from earth. imagine taking a selfie pic, tapos braso mo singhaba lang ng sa kangaroo. pero meron naman na-launch na mga probes, mas malayo pa sa moon; bakit nga naman walang picture ang mga ito sa likod ano?
this is very true. pero natawa talaga ko sa braso ng kangaroo. hahahahahahaha..
Post by: bumblebee on May 05, 2017 at 07:50 AM
actually, yun thousands of satellite na yun di talaga makukunan ng pic ang earth, kasi di naman sya ganun kalayo from earth. imagine taking a selfie pic, tapos braso mo singhaba lang ng sa kangaroo. pero meron naman na-launch na mga probes, mas malayo pa sa moon; bakit nga naman walang picture ang mga ito sa likod ano?
Meron na. Taken from 1 million miles away.
Post by: dpogs on May 05, 2017 at 07:56 AM
same din kaya kapag napicturan ang earth from the moon? kaya bilog na bilog ang mga picture ng NASA?
Post by: bumblebee on May 05, 2017 at 09:12 AM
Post by: rascal101 on May 05, 2017 at 09:14 AM
I ingles mo na lang sinasabi mo ... masakit tignan mga pangungusap kung saan mga simpleng salita kinakalimutan natin.
Post by: dpogs on May 05, 2017 at 10:44 AM
The picture you see is light being reflected. As you know, there is no light in space so you really can't tell the actual shape of things.
In short hindi peke ang mga picture ng NASA?
Post by: bumblebee on May 05, 2017 at 11:06 AM
Post by: majoe on May 05, 2017 at 11:13 AM
bro baka pwede ma explain mo ito, or kung may link ka. may mga videos din ako pinanonood online; mga religious groups debunking carbon dating.
sorry bro, wala ako link. i just discovered the calculation when i got curious on six days creation. i admit i am not a religious person but i literally fell down on my knees and prayed upon verifying the figures.
i would really love to share it bro but i cannot just post it here since it's quite a lengthy explanation and would require me to draw. maybe i should try to come up first with a simple write up or some sort of presentation so that i could easily share it with anyone.
Post by: JT on May 05, 2017 at 03:56 PM
In short hindi peke ang mga picture ng NASA?
Hmmm, i doubt ...
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
Post by: rascal101 on May 05, 2017 at 04:07 PM
Post by: JT on May 05, 2017 at 05:08 PM
Bakit ka nagdududa? Kung may mas tama kang paliwanag kung saan nailalathala mo ang tunay na hugis ng ating mundo bakit hindi ka paniniwalain. Mahirap magpaliwanag gamit salita lang lalo sa mga bagay na pwede gamitan ng mga gamit tulad ng mga satellite, at iba pa para patunayan ang tunay na hugis ng ating mundo.
Kung binasa mo yung artikulo, hindi sa hugis kungdi sa kapamaraan nila ginawa yung famosong BLUE MARBLE. Nasusulat doon na "Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s EXPECTATIONS of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. "
Bakit nga ba walang aktwal na litrato ang mundo?
Post by: bumblebee on May 05, 2017 at 05:35 PM
In short hindi peke ang mga picture ng NASA?
Here's live video if you're interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM
Post by: dpogs on May 05, 2017 at 05:52 PM
Kung binasa mo yung artikulo, hindi sa hugis kungdi sa kapamaraan nila ginawa yung famosong BLUE MARBLE. Nasusulat doon na "Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s EXPECTATIONS of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. "
Bakit nga ba walang aktwal na litrato ang mundo?
Here's live video if you're interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtU_mdL2vBM
Sir jt.. I dont think theres a worldwide conspiracy among scientist airplane owners companies ahuttles makers etc to hide the true shape of earth...
Theres some verses in the Bible indicating that the shape of the earth is round (may not be perfect circle) pero masasabi natin na spherical ang shape ng earth.
Post by: majoe on May 05, 2017 at 07:16 PM
Kung binasa mo yung artikulo, hindi sa hugis kungdi sa kapamaraan nila ginawa yung famosong BLUE MARBLE. Nasusulat doon na "Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s EXPECTATIONS of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. "
Bakit nga ba walang aktwal na litrato ang mundo?
go figure sir. 400km ang distance ng ISS, 600km ang hubble space telescope. diameter ng earth ay 12,742km. i plot mo as triangle. tingin mo may available na lens para ma capture ng buo ang earth in full detail? segment lang ng earth ang kaya nila ma capture kahit na naka wide angle lens pa. in comparison, para kang umakyat sa pinaka mataas na building sa makati tapos gusto mo kunan ng picture ang buong land area nito.
kaya nga stitching lang ng images ang paraan para mabuo ang isang picture.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 05, 2017 at 07:45 PM
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: JT on May 06, 2017 at 01:07 PM
kaya nga stitching lang ng images ang paraan para mabuo ang isang picture.
See this statement "Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. MY PART WAS INTEGRATING THE SURFACE, CLOUDS, AND OCEANS TO MATCH PEOPLE's EXPECTATIONS OF HOW EARTH LOOKS FROM SPACE. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. "
Again, its not the stitching that I am concerned with. It is the fabrication to make the picture conforms to the expectation of the people. Its the tampering I am concern with. Who knows what else has been changed. Regardless, it is no longer the truth as integrity is compromised. It means the original picture does match the texbooks taught to us in school, and even in universities or science websites.
I understand the limitation of satellites cam orbiting at inner space (low earth orbit). How about those in outer space? Check their videos and pictures, and there are anomalies as well. For other posts here that is related, lets analyze them in Science thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But probably the main reason why I am highlighting this now (as this is a religious thread) is because we need this kind of critical thinking when trying to understand the bible. Every Word must be considered to understand the full truth otherwise we can be deceived.
Be like the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11 "10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
For example. Someone will say the bible said "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Sounds good but can you even find the exact verse in the bible? No, actually its a modern proverb made up to sound like it is biblical.
The closest verse is in Proverbs 13:24 "He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. " which give a totally different view (just like the BLUE MARBLE).
Post by: bumblebee on May 06, 2017 at 03:45 PM
6,000 years (or 5,964 years to be exact) is not the age of the earth. it's the age of mankind starting from creation of Adam to present.
the actual age of the earth is around 4.567 billion years. the bible supports this with some sort of calculation.
Interesting. Would love to see the calculations as well. Does this mean though, you believe in prehistoric earth, eg, dinosaurs?
Post by: tony on May 07, 2017 at 10:24 AM
but really? what does it profit a man if he gains the world but suffer the loss of his soul?
to me your soul is the memory you leave behind when you die, it is how people remember you while you lived, your soul can be good like Rizal, or bad like marcos the dictator....
when people do not remember you anymore, then you have lost your soul....
Post by: majoe on May 09, 2017 at 01:14 PM
See this statement "Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. MY PART WAS INTEGRATING THE SURFACE, CLOUDS, AND OCEANS TO MATCH PEOPLE's EXPECTATIONS OF HOW EARTH LOOKS FROM SPACE. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. "
Again, its not the stitching that I am concerned with. It is the fabrication to make the picture conforms to the expectation of the people. Its the tampering I am concern with. Who knows what else has been changed. Regardless, it is no longer the truth as integrity is compromised. It means the original picture does match the texbooks taught to us in school, and even in universities or science websites.
I understand the limitation of satellites cam orbiting at inner space (low earth orbit). How about those in outer space? Check their videos and pictures, and there are anomalies as well. For other posts here that is related, lets analyze them in Science thread.
....
i don't see any problem when he said that. his basis there is the well accepted fact that the earth is round and the photographs taken by apollo 17. i believe they just do their job and did it in good faith. if there are really conspiracies, i don't think they can keep the secret this long as there are too many people involved in it.
...
But probably the main reason why I am highlighting this now (as this is a religious thread) is because we need this kind of critical thinking when trying to understand the bible. Every Word must be considered to understand the full truth otherwise we can be deceived.
Be like the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11 "10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
For example. Someone will say the bible said "Spare the rod, spoil the child". Sounds good but can you even find the exact verse in the bible? No, actually its a modern proverb made up to sound like it is biblical.
The closest verse is in Proverbs 13:24 "He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. " which give a totally different view (just like the BLUE MARBLE).
so, are there any passages in the scriptures that made you doubt that the earth is round?
Post by: majoe on May 09, 2017 at 01:15 PM
Interesting. Would love to see the calculations as well. Does this mean though, you believe in prehistoric earth, eg, dinosaurs?
yes, i believe in pre historic earth as described in science books. i believe that dinosaurs lived around 65-250 million years ago, so it is impossible that they co-existed with humans.
Post by: bumblebee on May 09, 2017 at 02:37 PM
Another question, if you don't mind. What's your take on Adam and Eve?
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Jul 14, 2017 at 01:30 PM
I'm not surprised. A lot of people here JESUS IS LORD kuno, pero hindi sila empathetic.
Post by: ninjababez® on Jul 15, 2017 at 11:55 PM
Children raised without religion are more kind and empathetic. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/11/study-finds-that-children-raised-without-religion-show-more-empathy-and-kindness/)baka naman dahil sa nakausap nila. may limit ang pasensya ng tao.
I'm not surprised. A lot of people here JESUS IS LORD kuno, pero hindi sila empathetic.
Post by: krets pulpol on Aug 01, 2017 at 11:49 AM
ayos! bubot pa talaga hah, father! tsk tsk
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 11, 2018 at 01:14 PM
Post by: tony on Jan 11, 2018 at 04:27 PM
Post by: krets pulpol on Jan 11, 2018 at 04:52 PM
older cases too involve towards young boys.
Post by: tony on Jan 11, 2018 at 05:04 PM
Post by: JeromeA on Jan 11, 2018 at 05:15 PM
does it matter the age? it is still a crime, i will not be the one to judge, it is between him and his God and the law...
+1
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 11:02 AM
priest are people to, subject to the weakness of the flesh...
Bakit ba laging ganito palusot natin... "Tao lang ako kahit na pari ako."
My goodness... Pari ka kaya expected sa iyo mamuhay nang mas mataas ang standard kesa sa common people.
Aba eh wala nang dapat nagpapari o nagpapastor kung ang expectation naman natin sa kanila eh madaling magkasala kasi tao lang.
Parang pulis lang yan... Pumatay ng addict inosente galit na galit tayo may narinig ba akong nagsabi na tao lang yang mga pulis nagkakasala pero kapag pari pambihira mabilis pa sa alas kwarto matic ang sagot "tao lang kasi"
Maiintindihan ko kung normal lang na tao pero hindi eh... Mga pari sila... Mga pastor sila...
Dapat sa mga pari o pastor na nagkasala ng child sexual abuse o pedopilea dapat death sentence sa kanila di na dapat binibigyan ng second chance na tumayo ulit sa likod ng altar.
Post by: tony on Jan 12, 2018 at 11:27 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 12:44 PM
Children raised without religion are more kind and empathetic. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2015/11/study-finds-that-children-raised-without-religion-show-more-empathy-and-kindness/)
I'm not surprised. A lot of people here JESUS IS LORD kuno, pero hindi sila empathetic.
May isang nagsulat ng ganito naging katotohanan na??? Malay natin iyung nagsulat mismo nagtatago sa kanyang mga pagkakasala - siya pala ay kunyaring mabait sa harap ng tao pero ang katotohanan ay hindi.
Mahirap magsalita tungkol sa ganito. Mabuti pang tumahimik na lang at gumawa ng kabutihan.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 01:07 PM
Bakit ba laging ganito palusot natin... "Tao lang ako kahit na pari ako."
My goodness... Pari ka kaya expected sa iyo mamuhay nang mas mataas ang standard kesa sa common people.
Aba eh wala nang dapat nagpapari o nagpapastor kung ang expectation naman natin sa kanila eh madaling magkasala kasi tao lang.
Parang pulis lang yan... Pumatay ng addict inosente galit na galit tayo may narinig ba akong nagsabi na tao lang yang mga pulis nagkakasala pero kapag pari pambihira mabilis pa sa alas kwarto matic ang sagot "tao lang kasi"
Maiintindihan ko kung normal lang na tao pero hindi eh... Mga pari sila... Mga pastor sila...
Dapat sa mga pari o pastor na nagkasala ng child sexual abuse o pedopilea dapat death sentence sa kanila di na dapat binibigyan ng second chance na tumayo ulit sa likod ng altar.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 01:29 PM
May isang nagsulat ng ganito naging katotohanan na??? Malay natin iyung nagsulat mismo nagtatago sa kanyang mga pagkakasala - siya pala ay kunyaring mabait sa harap ng tao pero ang katotohanan ay hindi.
Mahirap magsalita tungkol sa ganito. Mabuti pang tumahimik na lang at gumawa ng kabutihan.
Tama. Mga tinaguriang alagad ng Diyos ang mga pari/pastor/etc pero sila ang number one sa paggawa ng nakakakilabot na kasalanan ng mundo. Akalain mong menor edad na bata ipapasok mo sa motel. Mauunawaan ko pa kung isang simpleng tao ang gumawa nyan pero hindi eh... King sino pa ang tinaguriang pari o pastor siya pa ang gagawa ng karumal dumal na kasalanan.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 03:39 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:05 PM
Kaya sa mga nag aasam ng kagalang galang na posisyon sa lipunan o nandun na, hindi katanggap tanggap ang mga paglabag sa 10 utos ng ating Panginoon.
Wala pa naman akong kilala na na-meet personally na hindi nagkamali or nagkasala based sa 10 commandments.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:08 PM
Wala pa naman akong kilala na na-meet personally na hindi nagkamali or nagkasala based sa 10 commandments.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: tigkal on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:08 PM
May isang nagsulat ng ganito naging katotohanan na??? Malay natin iyung nagsulat mismo nagtatago sa kanyang mga pagkakasala - siya pala ay kunyaring mabait sa harap ng tao pero ang katotohanan ay hindi.Atheist are more peace loving than religious persons. They tend to more open minded. If you look at mankind's history, wars are waged in the name of religion. So I guess there will come a time that people will be fed up with religion and agree to ban all religion to stop the wars.
Mahirap magsalita tungkol sa ganito. Mabuti pang tumahimik na lang at gumawa ng kabutihan.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:11 PM
Post by: tigkal on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:17 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:21 PM
Proof of What? Proof of God? This is just a figment of my imagination but may come or may not come true. What if mankind comes in contact with higher intelligence and will explain in detail with matching demonstration on what is written in the bible. Parting of the red sea, no problem, river turns to red? death of first born? all with demonstration. Virgin birth? again with explanation and demonstration. Would your beliefs change? Or would you still stick to your beliefs no matter what?
Same "what if" would also hold true for those who do not believe. Let me rephrase your statement:
What if mankind comes in contact with a DEITY and will explain in detail with matching demonstration on what is written in the bible. Parting of the red sea, no problem, river turns to red? death of first born? all with demonstration. Virgin birth? again with explanation and demonstration. Would your beliefs change? Or would you still stick to your beliefs no matter what?
Would you?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:27 PM
Proof of What? Proof of God? This is just a figment of my imagination but may come or may not come true. What if mankind comes in contact with higher intelligence and will explain in detail with matching demonstration on what is written in the bible. Parting of the red sea, no problem, river turns to red? death of first born? all with demonstration. Virgin birth? again with explanation and demonstration. Would your beliefs change? Or would you still stick to your beliefs no matter what?
You're barking at the wrong tree. I actually agree that religions as we know will die but not for reasons like ending wars. End of wars, religion caused, will be the effect rather than cause.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:43 PM
You're barking at the wrong tree. I actually agree that religions as we know will die but not for reasons like ending wars. End of wars, religion caused, will be the effect rather than cause.
Post by: tigkal on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:05 PM
What I mean is it will be explained scientifically. If we are talking of Deity, it means no need to explain, just believe, just as what religion is now. It is faith that drives it, not logic or science. And if Deity, it means no one made them. But if higher intelligence, maybe someone also made them just like we were made. Anyway these are just wild ideas but good point to ponder where to stand when and if it will happen.
Same "what if" would also hold true for those who do not believe. Let me rephrase your statement:
What if mankind comes in contact with a DEITY and will explain in detail with matching demonstration on what is written in the bible. Parting of the red sea, no problem, river turns to red? death of first born? all with demonstration. Virgin birth? again with explanation and demonstration. Would your beliefs change? Or would you still stick to your beliefs no matter what?
Would you?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: tigkal on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:07 PM
The one problem with human beings is that when they are let loose they seem to think everything is possible. Religion sets what is possible and what is not. Human beings need to be governed not let loose or else there will be chaos.
But what is not possible before is possible now. Maybe there is no limit to what is possible. If it can be imagined, it can be possible. Because all that happens in our world begins with a single thought.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:27 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:32 PM
May mga hitsura hindi posible pero posible pala pero mayroon mga hindi posible na hindi talaga posible.
Kung posible lahat para sa iyo palagay ko diyos ka. Sa pagkakaalam ko diyos lang may kaya nito.
Halimbawa lang, sino ang alam mong hindi diyos nakabuhay ng patay?
But what is not possible before is possible now. Maybe there is no limit to what is possible. If it can be imagined, it can be possible. Because all that happens in our world begins with a single thought.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:33 PM
Religion evolves with society. Because it is man made. So whatever it sets as possible evolves as well.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:38 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:42 PM
Sige imagine pa more ...
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:44 PM
But these so called "Pastors" and/or "Priest" na tinaguriang tagapaglingkod ng Diyos, a servant of God, a messenger of God and kapag nagkasala ang sasabihin lang natin "tao lang naman sila please understand them"
Yes... Tao nga lang sila pero sila ay tagapaglingkod ng Diyos hindi ng tao kaya inaasahan namin silang mamuhay ng naaayon sa batas ng Diyos at hindi dapat nagtatago ng kakilakilabot na kasalanan. Do not compare priest/pastors to common people like us, they have all the oppurtunity to not commit sins they even preach the Word of God... Nagkasala sila hindi dahil sa tao lang sila at makasalanan... Nagawa nilang mangabuso ng bata kasi gusto nila.
Kung makapanglait tayo sa mga politiko akala mo eh mga anak na sila ng demonyo... Samantalang mas maraming mga huwad na pari at pastor na ginagamit ang pangalan ng Diyos para sa kanilang sariling laman. Ginagamit ang simbahan para mambiktima ng kabataan. Ginagamit ang bibliya para yumaman.
Minsan napapaisip talaga ako... Siguro tama silang mga mangmang na atheist... Kaya siguro nasasabi ng mga atheist na ito na hipokrito tayo... Kasi maraming mga pari at pastor pati mga kristiyano sama na ako na hindi ipinapamuhay ang salita ng Diyos.
Nagkasala ang pari/pastor:
- sagot ni christian: tao lang kasi nagkakasala... mapapatawad sila ng diyos.
Nagkasala ang isang hindi naniniwala sa Diyos:
- sagot ni christian: wala kasi silang diyos... mga anak sila ng demonyo... ibitay ang mga yan...
Ang daya naman ng mga kristiyano :( :( :(
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:44 PM
Post by: Pipo_1925 on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:46 PM
Hindi lahat posible sa mundo natin. Iyun ang katotohanan.eto sir baka lahat posible kay tigkal(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180112/5fb25108f48e5284ba711911ccd92177.jpg)
May mga hitsura hindi posible pero posible pala pero mayroon mga hindi posible na hindi talaga posible.
Kung posible lahat para sa iyo palagay ko diyos ka. Sa pagkakaalam ko diyos lang may kaya nito.
Halimbawa lang, sino ang alam mong hindi diyos nakabuhay ng patay?
Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 05:55 PM
It is already warped. Any object with mass warps spacetime.
A fact or still a theory?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 12, 2018 at 06:00 PM
What I mean is it will be explained scientifically. If we are talking of Deity, it means no need to explain, just believe, just as what religion is now. It is faith that drives it, not logic or science. And if Deity, it means no one made them. But if higher intelligence, maybe someone also made them just like we were made. Anyway these are just wild ideas but good point to ponder where to stand when and if it will happen.
Baligtad ata sir. If Deity based, the Deity made them. If science or higher intelligence, either life came from nowhere (Big Bang), or life emerged from something (natural selection ata ang tawag).
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 06:04 PM
https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 06:28 PM
You can't deny the math dpogs. Here's something you might find interesting.
https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe
Its a mathematical equation. Whats the definition of space/time ni enstein? His mathematical model is true based on his observation during his time. Ano ba ang nabebent na measurable during his time of observation?
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 06:36 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 07:17 PM
What is bent that is measurable during einstien time = einstien's space-time but not my definition of space-time :)
Ano ba specifically ang tinutukoy ni einstein na "space/time"? Kasi kung space na nothingness then common sense na lang we cant bend nothing. If we talk about trajectories baka mag agree ako sa iyo. :)
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 07:22 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 07:37 PM
Space time as in x, y, z axes plus time. As 3d plus time. Empty space is not nothing dpogs.
So basically were talking about trajectories complicated lang nga lang.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 07:38 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 07:59 PM
No we're talking about the space around us. Plus time.
Yup. To make it simple - trajectories :)
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 08:07 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 08:24 PM
No. Trajectory is a path in space.
No more question here. I will stop here. :)
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 08:46 PM
Iyung 10 utos ng diyos hindi nag e evolve gaya ng ginugusto mo.
Ang tao na gustong pahayahay gusto nag eevolve dahil ang mali ginagawang tama - ito mga gawain ng abogado. Paikot ikot gaya nitong warping ... walang patutunguhan ... pahabaan na lang tayo ng ihi para sure na meron mananalo ... hahaha
You can't deny the math dpogs. Here's something you might find interesting.
https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 08:58 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:04 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:11 PM
Question is, didn't god see it coming?
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:13 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:14 PM
Where did cain get his wife again?
Posibble his sister or niece. :)
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:14 PM
Posibble his sister or niece. :)
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:30 PM
Daming haka haka pero walang matinong sagot ...
Di kasi specific kung kapatid, pamangkin o apo ang napangasawa ni cain pero sigurado ako na kamaganak ang napangasawa niya.
Post by: dpogs on Jan 12, 2018 at 09:40 PM
Atheist are more peace loving than religious persons. They tend to more open minded. If you look at mankind's history, wars are waged in the name of religion. So I guess there will come a time that people will be fed up with religion and agree to ban all religion to stop the wars.
Yup. There will be a time soon that this world will ban all religion but will create one universal religion uniting the world and will not stop the war but will declare a great war against Israel. :) :) :)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 12, 2018 at 11:05 PM
It does seem he allowed a lot things.I agree with you. God seems to allow a lot of things. Did he see it coming? Perhaps? Hehe! Mahabang usapin yan because next topic would be predestination na.
Question is, didn't god see it coming?
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: ninjababez® on Jan 13, 2018 at 03:47 AM
Tama. Mga tinaguriang alagad ng Diyos ang mga pari/pastor/etc pero sila ang number one sa paggawa ng nakakakilabot na kasalanan ng mundo. Akalain mong menor edad na bata ipapasok mo sa motel. Mauunawaan ko pa kung isang simpleng tao ang gumawa nyan pero hindi eh... King sino pa ang tinaguriang pari o pastor siya pa ang gagawa ng karumal dumal na kasalanan.mauunawaan? kahit sinong gumawa nyan bro di ko mauunawaan!
Post by: ninjababez® on Jan 13, 2018 at 03:52 AM
Wala pa naman akong kilala na na-meet personally na hindi nagkamali or nagkasala based sa 10 commandments.pero dahil mabuti kang public servant master fluffy, tanggap mo parin kami :D
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: dpogs on Jan 13, 2018 at 03:57 AM
mauunawaan? kahit sinong gumawa nyan bro di ko mauunawaan!
yes sir. paano pa kaya kung pari o pastor ang gumawa aba eh lalong di mo mauunawaan bakit pa nila nagawa ang ganoong klaseng kasalanan... malamang lamang hindi lang yan isang beses nangyari matagal na niyang ginagawa yan. sasabihin lang "tao lang po kasi nagkakasala din" tsk that is not an excuse you're a priest/pastor for goodness sake araw araw mong kaharap ang Bible, araw araw kang nagsesermon sa likod ng alter, tapos may ganoong klaseng kasalanan :( :( :( kaya ko nasabi na mauunawaan ko pa kung hindi pari/pastor ang nagkasala nang ganoon.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 13, 2018 at 05:26 AM
pero dahil mabuti kang public servant master fluffy, tanggap mo parin kami :D
Haha!
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 05:57 AM
Yup. There will be a time soon that this world will ban all religion but will create one universal religion uniting the world and will not stop the war but will declare a great war against Israel. :) :) :)
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:15 AM
Ang tamang sagot ay mahirap tanggapin o hindi katanggap tanggap na kung sino pa ang nasa pwesto siya pa ang gumagawa ng ganitong kalokohan.
yes sir. paano pa kaya kung pari o pastor ang gumawa aba eh lalong di mo mauunawaan bakit pa nila nagawa ang ganoong klaseng kasalanan... malamang lamang hindi lang yan isang beses nangyari matagal na niyang ginagawa yan. sasabihin lang "tao lang po kasi nagkakasala din" tsk that is not an excuse you're a priest/pastor for goodness sake araw araw mong kaharap ang Bible, araw araw kang nagsesermon sa likod ng alter, tapos may ganoong klaseng kasalanan :( :( :( kaya ko nasabi na mauunawaan ko pa kung hindi pari/pastor ang nagkasala nang ganoon.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:22 AM
I agree with you. God seems to allow a lot of things. Did he see it coming? Perhaps? Hehe! Mahabang usapin yan because next topic would be predestination na.
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
He should have seen it coming. It was he who told them to go forth and multiply. So it seemed like incest was okay one time and then became evil?
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:27 AM
He should have seen it coming. It was he who told them to go forth and multiply. So it seemed like incest was okay one time and then became evil?
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:29 AM
He should have seen it coming. It was he who told them to go forth and multiply. So it seemed like incest was okay one time and then became evil?
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:39 AM
He should have seen it coming. It was he who told them to go forth and multiply. So it seemed like incest was okay one time and then became evil?
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:40 AM
Hindi ka naman obligadong sumagot sa tanong kung hindi mo alam sagot. But let others ask and let others answer.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:44 AM
I'm not questioning god, I'm questioning religion's teachings.
Hindi ka naman obligadong sumagot sa tanong kung hindi mo alam sagot. But let others ask and let others answer.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:46 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:48 AM
Are you saying merong ibang tao aside from adam and eve?
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:49 AM
Ang haka haka po iikot lang ng iikot ang kwento. Walang hangganan. Posible may makasagot ng "katanggap tanggap" pero meron ulit kokontra kasi mas magaling o mas katanggap tanggap ang paliwanag.
Kung gusto mo doon ka sa showbiz. Dami kwento doon haka haka. Bagay doon.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:51 AM
Post by: ninjababez® on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:55 AM
Kung gusto mo kumontra sa Diyos sa kanya ka mismo magtanong o dumebate. Huwag mong tatanungin kapwa mo tao.
Kung gusto mo kumontra sa Diyos sa kanya ka mismo magtanong o dumebate. Huwag mong tatanungin kapwa mo tao.
dont start guys, di nanaman mattapos yan usapan na yan
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:58 AM
Problema po kasi gusto pag usapan mga bagay na nagsimula sa haka haka. Wala talagang patutunguhan iyun.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:19 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:22 AM
And there you go. This exchange shows why and how i think religion will die a natural death.
Sensiya na po.
Anyway religion will not die a natural death. Eventually religion will unite the world to rebel against God and then God will destroy religion and this earth.
To answer your question regarding Cain's wife. Yes he marry his own sister or his niece or grandniexe. Why God allows incest during time of Adam and Eve. Please take note that Eve originally came from Adam's body. Adam and eve did not have any genetic defects and their childrend had no other choice but to marry their own sisters and brothers. But during Moses time God declares that it is wrong and we already know why it is wrong.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:29 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:32 AM
Thank you dpogs. So yun nga, incest was okay at one point.
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:36 AM
The text is unclear because after Cain is exiled he suddenly is married and builds a city.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:46 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:52 AM
Thank you dpogs. So yun nga, incest was okay at one point.
Take note that sexual relation between close relatives viewed differently pre-Law and post-Law. It did not become incest until God commanded against it.
Relationship between close relatives becore the Law should not be viewed incestous.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 07:59 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jan 13, 2018 at 08:10 AM
That's lawyering dpogs. And the more you try to explain, the more it bothers.
Because we think of incest differently today that is why it bothers us and ask why God allows it :) :)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jan 13, 2018 at 08:14 AM
He should have seen it coming. It was he who told them to go forth and multiply. So it seemed like incest was okay one time and then became evil?Ah. I thought you were asking a general question and not about the Cain thing. Well I guess you got your answer. Yeah God knows that will happen. If it wasn't okay, and assuming you believe in the bible, I guess we all wouldn't be here right now. Hehe!
Sent from my ASUS_Z012D using Tapatalk
Post by: tony on Jan 13, 2018 at 08:19 AM
the reason for banning incest is a practical way to ensure the human race survive...
Post by: rascal101 on Jan 13, 2018 at 09:29 AM
For me I would rather leave it as is because there is no point discussing something which no one can fully answer satisfactorily.
I know, and it bothers me.
Post by: drhiredgun on Jan 13, 2018 at 10:05 AM
Problema yung walang maisagot sa tanong tapos sasabihing wag mo nang itanong. E meron namang willing sumagot.
Ang malaking problema ay kung tinanong mo ang diyos......at sumagot siya.
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 04:22 PM
inbreeding produces offspring with recessive genes, mental and physical deformities and we do not want the human race to go the way of cats, dogs and monkeys so inbreeding became taboo, there is a scientific reason why it became taboo...
the reason for banning incest is a practical way to ensure the human race survive...
Are you somehow attributing modern abnormalities to the first incest?
Post by: tony on Jan 13, 2018 at 05:18 PM
Are you somehow attributing modern abnormalities to the first incest?
who knows when that happened or if that happened at all?...but science proved that incest is not good..
i take the bible for the wisdom contained therein, not the stories that makes you think, say what?
you can take the bible literally and maybe miss the good messages that are in the books thereof..
kaya nga lahat ng makabasa ng bible, gusto magtayo ng religion nila....malaking negosyo ang religion...
i read the bible from cover to cover, and there are indeed good lessons to be applied to our daily living.....
why would i waste my time on incest, which i know is not good....period...
Post by: bumblebee on Jan 13, 2018 at 06:31 PM
Post by: tony on Jan 13, 2018 at 08:58 PM
Post by: newbie pa rin on Jun 27, 2018 at 08:52 AM
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html
Post by: tony on Jan 03, 2019 at 12:18 PM
(https://scontent.fmnl17-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49509524_988916997978670_3391530077861707776_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fmnl17-1.fna&oh=ccc7927a04de3c9aed8257ea32505178&oe=5CC75B1D)
Post by: Nicadraus on Jan 03, 2019 at 01:27 PM
Christianity is attacked, and you are not concerned?
(https://scontent.fmnl17-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/49509524_988916997978670_3391530077861707776_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent.fmnl17-1.fna&oh=ccc7927a04de3c9aed8257ea32505178&oe=5CC75B1D)
Unfortunately, majority of Christians (especially Catholics) have no unity like Muslims, Buddhists, or even INC does, unlike before (pre 2000). Many are very selfish and only think about themselves.
Post by: tony on Jan 03, 2019 at 04:21 PM
Post by: oweidah on Jan 28, 2019 at 03:07 PM
hahaha
un nagpost jaime?... sabi DAW ng Diyos bawal un pagkain....tsk yan ang hirap hindi nmn pala 1sthand...DAW...
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Feb 05, 2019 at 01:51 PM
Being religious is definitely NOT the same as being a good person.
Post by: tony on Feb 06, 2019 at 07:26 AM
in the eyes of the Devine Providence, we are all naked.....
Post by: krets pulpol on Feb 06, 2019 at 09:56 AM
wow, parang porn lang ah
Post by: tony on Feb 06, 2019 at 07:01 PM
Post by: krets pulpol on Mar 06, 2019 at 12:36 PM
Pastor Apollo Quiboloy - Appointed Son of God
eh di wow lang!
Post by: fattyacid on Mar 06, 2019 at 01:05 PM
Post by: sdsmds on Mar 16, 2019 at 12:45 AM
Saw this big billboard along Edsa GuadalupePrang artista ang pormahan tuwing makikita ko ang pictures. Meron pang mga foreigner singers
Pastor Apollo Quiboloy - Appointed Son of God
eh di wow lang!
Post by: sdsmds on Mar 16, 2019 at 12:51 AM
Been a catholic since birth but not religious. Up to now confuse ako sa fasting ng lent.
Kailan ba start? Ash wed? Or every Friday after ash wed?
Anong food pwede kainin sa fasting? Tia
Tried back reading pro wala akong nakita. Sorry din if ot.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 16, 2019 at 06:56 PM
Enlighten lang Mga Bros,
Been a catholic since birth but not religious. Up to now confuse ako sa fasting ng lent.
Kailan ba start? Ash wed? Or every Friday after ash wed?
Anong food pwede kainin sa fasting? Tia
Tried back reading pro wala akong nakita. Sorry din if ot.
Siguro sir baka maganda din you study why may fasting, purpose etc. Para you'd know why and what.
Post by: sdsmds on Mar 16, 2019 at 08:43 PM
Siguro sir baka maganda din you study why may fasting, purpose etc. Para you'd know why and what.Nice point. Thanks
Post by: oweidah on Apr 24, 2019 at 07:13 PM
Post by: Pipo_1925 on Apr 24, 2019 at 08:47 PM
https://libre.inquirer.net/10248/puting-kabayo-sa-langit-senyales-ng-end-of-times?fbclid=IwAR1Bas3jO0NDsYKq_SdXvKd_ztXOHNosZe7JrAQykPy1G68-TrERvSrlxIEmas magaling sila gumawa kaysa kay mocha ah
Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Nov 23, 2019 at 07:35 PM
Post by: Klaus Weasley on Nov 29, 2019 at 07:15 PM
Post by: tony on Dec 03, 2019 at 09:12 AM
religious including the evangelicals are all about money and power, look at our religions here, they try to meddle in politics....build big big edifices that even Christ himself will disown in case He came back....
the bible itself has been tampered with by the powers that be,,,during those times many many years after Jesus died on the cross....so how can you take the bible literally?
Post by: jas on Mar 03, 2021 at 03:48 PM
500 Years of Christianity in the Philippines
https://500yoc.com/
Pope Francis to celebrate Mass in Vatican for the 500 Years of Christianity in PH
Pope Francis will lead Filipinos in Italy in celebrating the 500 Years of Christianity in the Philippines. Scalabrinian Father Ricky Gente of the Filipino Chaplaincy in Rome told CBCP News that the Pope will celebrate Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica at 10 a.m. on March 14.
Due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions, a limited number of people will be allowed to attend the Mass physically inside the basilica. Gente said the celebration will be livestreamed from the Vatican to reach Filipinos in different parts of the world.
The Pontiff will be joined by Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, the pope’s vicar of Rome.
https://mb.com.ph/2021/03/03/pope-francis-to-celebrate-mass-in-vatican-for-the-500-years-of-christianity-in-ph/
Post by: tony on Mar 03, 2021 at 05:47 PM
Siguro sir baka maganda din you study why may fasting, purpose etc. Para you'd know why and what.
i listen to Sadhguru, lots to learn....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ7ZvPghdy8
Post by: tony on Mar 03, 2021 at 05:53 PM
if your religion teaches you to hate another for his or her opinions, then beware because that is the devil manifesting n you.....
Jesus teaches about love of fellowmen, yes, even your enemies....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 03, 2021 at 09:59 PM
Brother Eli Soriano passed away recently, and a day before, he had a good message for the RC....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNX88qu7RKc
if your religion teaches you to hate another for his or her opinions, then beware because that is the devil manifesting n you.....
Jesus teaches about love of fellowmen, yes, seen your enemies....
Do you love your fellowmen and enemies?
Post by: tony on Mar 04, 2021 at 08:09 AM
Do you love your fellowmen and enemies?
in a sense that i will never wish them harm......
in Gethsemane, when one of his disciples struck a Roman Centurion severing an ear, Jesus healed the centurion, and told his disciple, "live by the sword and perish with it......"
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 05, 2021 at 12:23 AM
in a sense that i will never wish them harm......
in Gethsemane, when one of his disciples struck a Roman Centurion severing an ear, Jesus healed the centurion, and told his disciple, "live by the sword and perish with it......"
Sent from my ASUS_X00QD using Tapatalk
Post by: tony on Mar 05, 2021 at 07:49 AM
Post by: tony on Apr 28, 2021 at 09:42 AM
Michael Luscombe
ltSephaonmcNovegombslemr o17,rha m2sh01euh4dn ·
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction,
and Special Education University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
Post by: drhiredgun on Apr 28, 2021 at 10:16 AM
Post by: tony on Apr 28, 2021 at 10:36 AM
when Jesus died on the cross and died for our sins, that would and should have been it....
Jesus did not come for the Old Testament, he laid down his new laws...that is Love for one another...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 29, 2021 at 05:57 PM
from my newsfeed:
Michael Luscombe
ltSephaonmcNovegombslemr o17,rha m2sh01euh4dn ·
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction,
and Special Education University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
Dear James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction,
and Special Education University of Virginia
Mind your own business. Hehe!
Post by: tony on Apr 30, 2021 at 09:40 AM
Dear James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction,
and Special Education University of Virginia
Mind your own business. Hehe!
is that the best you can do? answer the points raised if you know the answer, do not attack the messenger.....your response is a cop out....
Post by: tony on Apr 30, 2021 at 09:56 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 30, 2021 at 06:47 PM
is that the best you can do? answer the points raised if you know the answer, do not attack the messenger.....your response is a cop out....
Oooppss. Sorry. I actually meant is as a joke when drhiredgun replied
...made my day :)
Okay I will try:
from my newsfeed:This I cannot clarify because I was not the onw wqho made that statement.
Michael Luscombe
ltSephaonmcNovegombslemr o17,rha m2sh01euh4dn ·
In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?In this day and age, it would be against the law to sell your daughter as slave.
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.This is a communication problem and maybe I'm not also good in asking women without them taking offense.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9.You should not smite them.
The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.You are not obliged to kill him.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?I'd rather not discuss degrees of abomination. I'd rather discuss how to love people.
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?The law does not apply to you.
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?It does not say they should die.
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?It does not make you unclean. So you may play football without gloves.
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction,
and Special Education University of Virginia
(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
Technology and science has developed a lot lately. During the Leviticus days, there was no grafting or washing machine or different process of washing clothes and planting. Please do not quote me on my reply to this question bacuse this is just my personal theory. It is easier to explain to a group of people during those days, to use a single pabric because when you wash and hang your clothes, mag-iiba ang urong na fabric and hemp. Hindi even.
With regards to planting naman. Meron kasing mga plants or trees that should co-exist. An example is, a very tall plant should not be planted beside a short plant or else it will not get proper sunlight. Madami pa din answers why pero try to conceptualize it during the Leviticus times.
is that the best you can do? answer the points raised if you know the answer, do not attack the messenger.....your response is a cop out....
And just to add, the points raised were somewhat metaphor so i considered it as a joke. My apologies again if it was not funny for you. I really really thought that the purpose of you posting that is to share humor... My bad.
And I am not actually attacking the messenger, I am just trying to make a simple joke or humor about it. If you would actually read the questions, medjo humorous naman talaga. Kaya nga humorous din ang reply ni drhiredgun. Kahit paano may kaunting sense of humor pa naman natitira sa buto ko. Haha! Unless you don't find the questions in your feed humorous... That is a different topic.
So did my answers to the questions raised a valid answer for you? ;D
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Apr 30, 2021 at 06:49 PM
when questioned about the Sabbath, Jesus said he did not come for the Laws but to break them, and so he did by dying on the cross....what could be clearer than that?
This is something new to me. Saan niyo siya nabasa?
Post by: dpogs on May 01, 2021 at 12:55 AM
Baka natypo error lang si sir tony.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 01, 2021 at 05:20 PM
Jesus came not to break the law... but to fulfill the law.
Baka natypo error lang si sir tony.
Palagay ko nga... Pero let's wait for his reply. Sometimes he has a different opinion din naman kasi which deserves to be heard.
Post by: tony on May 01, 2021 at 06:06 PM
my take is that not everything you read on the bible can be taken seriously...
Post by: dpogs on May 01, 2021 at 08:06 PM
or something to that effect...there was an incident when he cured a sick on a sabbath, clearly law breaking....
my take is that not everything you read on the bible can be taken seriously...
Jesus never breaks the law. Si Jesus na mismo nagsabi na He came to this world not to break the law but to fulfill the law.
Kaya nga tanong namin saan sa Bible sinabi ni Jesus as you mentioned... na He came to this world to break the law.?
Post by: tony on May 01, 2021 at 08:24 PM
Post by: edwn1220 on May 01, 2021 at 08:35 PM
or something to that effect...there was an incident when he cured a sick on a sabbath, clearly law breaking....
my take is that not everything you read on the bible can be taken seriously...
I have to disagree with this.
Baka naman ang ibig mong sabihin sir "is not to be taken literally"?
Post by: tony on May 01, 2021 at 08:58 PM
I have to disagree with this.
Baka naman ang ibig mong sabihin sir "is not to be taken literally"?
same lang, there are Jewish practices that are not to be taken seriously...
Post by: dpogs on May 01, 2021 at 10:17 PM
ano bang law iyan? ang basis ng comment ko ay dahil nasita sya sa panggagamot during sabbath day....yun lang...obviously binale nya ang sabbath law ng mga Hudyo...yung panggagamot during sabbath, is that fulfilling the law?healing during sabbath is not against the law.
We re talking abot old testament law ... anyway... can you please clarify or be specific sa sinasabi mong "jesus said he did not come foe the laws but to break it" ... last time i check mowhere in the Bible na sinabi yan ni Jesus.
Post by: tony on May 02, 2021 at 09:54 AM
healing during sabbath is not against the law.
We re talking abot old testament law ... anyway... can you please clarify or be specific sa sinasabi mong "jesus said he did not come foe the laws but to break it" ... last time i check mowhere in the Bible na sinabi yan ni Jesus.
i have laid down the predicate.....no point to debate this ad hominem....
Post by: dpogs on May 02, 2021 at 12:18 PM
Dahil sa mga ganyan madaming nauuto ang mga kulto.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 02, 2021 at 05:13 PM
i have laid down the predicate.....no point to debate this ad hominem....Wala naman akong nakitang ad hominem from the statements of dpogs... If so i think dpogs deserve to clarify that.
Sent from my ASUS_X00QD using Tapatalk
Post by: tony on May 02, 2021 at 05:35 PM
Post by: dpogs on May 02, 2021 at 06:01 PM
the gospel of Mark i believe covered this sabbath incident with Jesus.....
Yes. What i want to know is saan mo nakita sa Bible na sinabi ni Jesus that He came to this world to break the law?
Importante kasi na hindi natin ma-misquote ang Salita ng Diyos. Walang bawas o dagdag; ni period or comma dapat eksakto ayon sa nasusulat.
Post by: tony on May 02, 2021 at 06:25 PM
Post by: dpogs on May 02, 2021 at 06:40 PM
i do not quote the bible, i say what i skim from the words, hindi pwede yang argument mo, kasi kung ganon pwede ko ibenta ang anak ko para maging alipin....nasa bible yan..
when questioned about the Sabbath, Jesus said he did not come for the Laws but to break them, and so he did by dying on the cross....what could be clearer than that?
The word "Jesus said..." means you quote the Bible...
you imply that Jesus came to break the law but mowhere in the Bible indicates that Jesus breaks the law of God.
Post by: tony on May 02, 2021 at 06:53 PM
Post by: dpogs on May 02, 2021 at 07:29 PM
there are many laws in the bible....
Ýes... but Jesus never said what you quote... "...to break the law" what i am clarifying is... did He really said that that he came to break the law (kung anumang law yang tinutukoy mo)?
Post by: tony on May 03, 2021 at 06:03 AM
Never quote the word of God if it is not in the Bible.
Dahil sa mga ganyan madaming nauuto ang mga kulto.
not everything written in the bible is the word of God......the bible contained the words of God....
Post by: dpogs on May 03, 2021 at 08:21 AM
* kung anumang law yang tinutukoy mo
Post by: jjjeronimo on May 03, 2021 at 09:14 AM
Not all sects subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, e.g. fundamentalists believe that the world was created in 7 days as written in the Bible. A Baptist friend of mine says there was no debate about this because even the "original version" of the Bible (he goes on to mention an ancient text that I can't recall right now) was very clear that the day mentioned referred exactly to 24 hours. I think the Catholic Church teaches that some of what's written in the Bible is just symbolism (don't quote me on that, though. I was born Catholic, but I wouldn't necessarily call myself as devout).
Post by: dpogs on May 03, 2021 at 09:33 AM
^I think what you're debating about is what is written in the Bible vs an interpretation of what's written. I think that what ka tony is referring to is an interpretation of what is actually written.
Not all sects subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, e.g. fundamentalists believe that the world was created in 7 days as written in the Bible. A Baptist friend of mine says there was no debate about this because even the "original version" of the Bible (he goes on to mention an ancient text that I can't recall right now) was very clear that the day mentioned referred exactly to 24 hours. I think the Catholic Church teaches that some of what's written in the Bible is just symbolism (don't quote me on that, though. I was born Catholic, but I wouldn't necessarily call my self as devout).
when you interpret the Bible do not make it as if Jesus said said it or as if it is what Jesus said (will say). also dont qoute/use the word "JESUS SAID...(and then add your own interpration)..." kasi you just basically altering the Word of Jesus.
if you read the whole Bible... it never mentioned nor suggests that Jesus will come to this world to break the law (any types of law in the Bible - civil, religious, moral, ceremonial, etc)
Post by: tony on May 04, 2021 at 07:28 AM
truth is, religions caused mass slaughters, recorded in history....man's inhumanity to man continued even after Jesus went up to heaven.....
Post by: Nelson de Leon on May 06, 2021 at 11:50 PM
something to chew on, before Jesus ascended to heaven, Jesus did not leave a copy of the bible to his disciples and told them, here, read all about it in this book.....nothing of that sort happened...
truth is, religions caused mass slaughters, recorded in history....man's inhumanity to man continued even after Jesus went up to heaven.....
Hehe! You really don't know a thing. Before Jesus was born flesh they jews already have the old testament. And Jesus was even quoting the old testament in some of His sermons...
FYI
Post by: tony on May 07, 2021 at 06:58 AM
Hehe! You really don't know a thing. Before Jesus was born flesh they jews already have the old testament. And Jesus was even quoting the old testament in some of His sermons...
FYI
but the Jews disowned Jesus.....the book of the Jews was it called bible back then? the new testament did Jesus left a copy of that to his disciples before he left?
it is good i do not know anything....
Post by: dpogs on May 07, 2021 at 07:40 AM
but the Jews disowned Jesus.....the book of the Jews was it called bible back then? the new testament did Jesus left a copy of that to his disciples before he left?
it is good i do not know anything....
book of the jews = its their own interpretation its not the Word of God (note how they use their book (their own interpretation) to accuse Jesus of braking the Law) but then Jesus quote the Word of God (old testament) saying that He never break the Law (mapa civil law man yan o mapa moral law)
new testament book - Jesus never left a copy... but He inspired His disciples to write the Scriptures (new testament) so the Scriptures is not human's own interpretation but of God.
2 Tim 3:16
2 Pet 1:20-21
Post by: tony on Sep 15, 2023 at 09:52 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 20, 2023 at 09:11 PM
Mukhang may clash of words tayo...
Pero dito kaya ito sa religion thread na ito magandang idiscuss?
Post by: tony on Sep 25, 2023 at 05:26 PM
Sir Tony, the root word of christianity is Christ. And the followers and believers of Christ are called christians. And Jesus is Christ.
Mukhang may clash of words tayo...
Pero dito kaya ito sa religion thread na ito magandang idiscuss?
sa akin malinaw,there are strong chances that Hindus, Muslims. Budhists and others are more Christ like than those baptized as sp called Christians, hindi kita sa buhay nila, karamihan nagssimba, sumasamba, pero ano talaga sila?
why insist on labels? it is not a measure by any sense....
Post by: jas on Sep 25, 2023 at 06:14 PM
sa akin malinaw,there are strong chances that Hindus, Muslims. Budhists and others are more Christ like than those baptized as sp called Christians, hindi kita sa buhay nila, karamihan nagssimba, sumasamba, pero ano talaga sila?
why insist on labels? it is not a measure by any sense....
Personally agree on this. I am Catholic, but I don't think that strictly only Catholics or Christians will be "saved". There are many people from other religions or faiths who may not firmly believe in the same God as ours, but practice goodness, kindness, and the very lessons / virtues taught by Christ. Yung iba pa nga, mas "Christ-like" pa ang character than some real baptized Christians.
Post by: Own7 on Sep 25, 2023 at 06:45 PM
Mo. No mention of any particular religion. Actually yung mga tao
Na nagsasabing “mapupunta ka sa impyerno” for whatever reason
Ang mas dapat matakot, Dahil lahat nga humuhusga ay huhusgahan din.
Ang masama pa pa dyan sa humuhusgang relihiyon ay yumayaman sa
Panghuhusga nila.
….puro tuloy panghuhusga lumalabas sa bibig ko…..
Post by: jjjeronimo on Sep 25, 2023 at 06:46 PM
Personally agree on this. I am Catholic, but I don't think that strictly only Catholics or Christians will be "saved". There are many people from other religions or faiths who may not firmly believe in the same God as ours, but practice goodness, kindness, and the very lessons / virtues taught by Christ. Yung iba pa nga, mas "Christ-like" pa ang character than some real baptized Christians.
I am always reminded of that line from the movie "Kingdom of Heaven".
Balian Of Ibelin:
"...God will understand, my lord. And if he doesn't...then he is not God. And we need not worry."
I am also Catholic, but I believe in a just God, first and foremost. At the end of the day, I believe what matters is how you lived your life, and not what sect/religion or denomination you follow.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 25, 2023 at 07:13 PM
sa akin malinaw,there are strong chances that Hindus, Muslims. Budhists and others are more Christ like than those baptized as sp called Christians, hindi kita sa buhay nila, karamihan nagssimba, sumasamba, pero ano talaga sila?
why insist on labels? it is not a measure by any sense....
It's not labeling for me. Well let me recall your previous statement:
not all Christians follow Christianity, there are non Christians who Jesus would embrace as his when he comes...
I believe the words you used can also be defined as labels. I am merely using your terms.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 25, 2023 at 07:19 PM
Post by: jjjeronimo on Sep 25, 2023 at 09:34 PM
Magandang topic ito. And what will be our reference point pagdating sa God our Creator? Where will we find out where He is? What does He want? Ano ba ang kailangan natin gawin? What will be good and bad for Him?
Sabi nga nung father-in-law ko dati, "hindi naman siguro masama ang Panginoon na parurusahan ako pag di ako nakapagsimba, kung wala naman akong sinasaktan na tao o gumagawa ng kasamaan"
Post by: tony on Sep 26, 2023 at 10:38 AM
Hehe! You really don't know a thing. Before Jesus was born flesh they jews already have the old testament. And Jesus was even quoting the old testament in some of His sermons...
FYI
oh yeah i really do not know a thing abut your religion, but look at Apollo Quibuloy, and the likes of him, are they a man of God? i doubt that...
Post by: tony on Sep 26, 2023 at 10:40 AM
Sabi nga nung father-in-law ko dati, "hindi naman siguro masama ang Panginoon na parurusahan ako pag di ako nakapagsimba, kung wala naman akong sinasaktan na tao o gumagawa ng kasamaan"
exactly, Jesus is all about love, in his last supper, he admonished his disciples to love one another like Jesus loved them....what is so hard about that? and yet today we see religion as a big business enterprise, siksik liglig at umaapaw......
Post by: dpogs on Oct 09, 2023 at 05:38 PM
Sabi nga nung father-in-law ko dati, "hindi naman siguro masama ang Panginoon na parurusahan ako pag di ako nakapagsimba, kung wala naman akong sinasaktan na tao o gumagawa ng kasamaan"
God is not only God of Love... please remember that God is also the God of Judgement... He is love and He is the Law... when God said he will punish all sinner then God will judge us as "sinners" not on what good deeds we do here on earth.
You love you neighbor but you're still a sinner in eyes of God
You did not hurt anyone but you're still a sinner in eyes of God
You did nothing to offend your niehgbor but you're a sinner in eyes of God
Even if you're the saint like person here on earth you're still a sinner in eyes of God
The moment you know what is right or wrong then you're subject to God's judgement
God is LOVE and at the same time He is Righteous Judge... God doesnt differentiate whether youre a saint or a murderer before eyes of men... we are all sinner before HIM and worthy of Hell.
as a Righteous Judge who rule Heaven and Earth we are all equal before God - we are all sinners (on this aspect we are all equal before God)
Even if you change during your adulthood pero nung bata ka natuto ka nang magsinungaling wala kang kaibahan sa isang murderer - before God iisa lang ang tingin nya sa atin - sinners
nagmura = sin = punishable by death (hell)
pumatay = sin = punishable by death (hell)
nangupit ng piso = sin = punishable by death (hell)
nangupit ng milyon = sin = punishable by death (hell)
tumingin ng may pagnanasa = sin = punishable by death (hell)
nag-rape = sin = punishable by death (hell)
if we think God is not like that then Satan is very successful making false statement about God.
Di ba tayo nagtataka bakit madaming religion? This is Satan's way to deceive people. Satan is the author of confusion (simula pa yan kay Adam and Eve) "yeah sinabi ba talaga ng Diyos yan"....
Unless we realize that we are sinner before God... unless we realize that we are nothing befor God... unless you realize that whatever you did is nothing before God... unless you realized that you need a Saviour... we will never receive the Grace of God...
God as a God of Love and at the same as a God of Justice - since God loves his creation (us) and at the same time nagkasala tayo and He needs to implement the punishment as a Righteous God... and how He solve this dillema - God Jesus Christ offers himsel- no man can see God except thru Jesus Christ... by the Blood of Christ as a payment for sins God only requires your faith alone...
if you think that you're good enough to go to Heaven
if you think that you're good enough para mapatawad ng Diyos
if you think that you can do more to obtain salvation
then you really don't need a Saviour...
then you discredit the wonderful works of God - Salvation thru Jesus Christ alone
Post by: tony on Oct 10, 2023 at 10:24 AM
today the current flavor is the God of Senyor Aguila who is presently under custody of the senate....indeed religion is big business, .a way to accumulate lots of wealth and political power, just like that cult along EDSA......
what has religion done in our society? become very rich and powerful.....
remeber Quibuloy, the appointed son of god? many suckers believe them....
a tree, any tree is known by the fruits it bears or the shadow it casts, never by what religious propagandists say...
i believe in a GOD, but maybe not the same GOD as yours...
my God is full of Mercy and Love....
Post by: Own7 on Oct 10, 2023 at 10:34 AM
Sa diyos pa lang magkakaiba na ang pananaw at pinag aawayan pa.
Parang “my lord is bigger than yours” arguement. Kaya lalong nagkakagulo
Since dito pa lang nga giyera na eh lalo na sa ibang usapin paano na?
Post by: tony on Oct 10, 2023 at 10:40 AM
It's not labeling for me. Well let me recall your previous statement:
I believe the words you used can also be defined as labels. I am merely using your terms.
of course you can.....i am not swayed...
Post by: tony on Oct 10, 2023 at 10:42 AM
Isipin mo paano magkakaroon ng peace and unity among mankind kung
Sa diyos pa lang magkakaiba na ang pananaw at pinag aawayan pa.
Parang “my lord is bigger than yours” arguement. Kaya lalong nagkakagulo
Since dito pa lang nga giyera na eh lalo na sa ibang usapin paano na?
and worst, they wage war against one another, who needs them..
Post by: tony on Oct 10, 2023 at 10:44 AM
Quote
Di ba tayo nagtataka bakit madaming religion? This is Satan's way to deceive people. Satan is the author of confusion (simula pa yan kay Adam and Eve) "yeah sinabi ba talaga ng Diyos yan"....
oh yes, another one of man's creation, kung may bida, dapat me kontrabida....
Quote
if you think that you're good enough to go to Heaven
if you think that you're good enough para mapatawad ng Diyos
if you think that you can do more to obtain salvation
then you really don't need a Saviour...
then you discredit the wonderful works of God - Salvation thru Jesus Christ alone
these are the caveats that religious propagandists make as if God is not capable of knowing your innermost soul, i give my God the most credit He deserved.....
Post by: dpogs on Oct 11, 2023 at 08:31 AM
oh yes, another one of man's creation, kung may bida, dapat me kontrabida....
its in the Bible... it is written... the prince of this world is Satan.. satan is the ruler of this world (John 12:31)... di yan gawa gawa ng tao :)
Adam and Eve were deceived by the Serpent (Satan)... it is written... hindi yan imbento ng tao
these are the caveats that religious propagandists make as if God is not capable of knowing your innermost soul, i give my God the most credit He deserved.....
innermost of our soul = sinner
its in the Bible... human soul is not capable of doing good in the eyes of God unless you were cleanse by the Blood of Jesus Christ.
its in the Bible... human soul does not deserve God's mercy unless you were cleanse by the Blood of Jesus Christ
we can never please God sabihin mo man na isa ka sa pinakabanal na tao dito sa lupa... no one can please God unless you were cleanse by the Blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:5-11)
people who think that they're good enough to obtain favor from God will never obtain God's grace and mercy (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Post by: tony on Oct 11, 2023 at 01:59 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 11, 2023 at 04:55 PM
take away your bible and where are you then? like billions of other people who do not even read the bible...
When it comes to God the Bible is the final authority. The Bible is the written Word of God. Without the Word of God my life and existence is meaningless. The Bible is the Word of God, without the Word of God - I am nothing. The Bible tells me about Jesus, tells me about God. I cant live without the Bile
The same for billions of other people who were deceived by Satan that until now dont even know that the Word of God exists. The Word of God is the law. I am very thankful that the Word of God the Bible reached me. and it is such a pity na dito sa Pilipinas na very accessible ang Bible pero di ginagamit karamihan. They created their own version of god according to their own imagination and personal preference.
Billions were not reach .... missionaries were killed... Satan is the author of confusion... deceived billions of people... "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. " Matt. 7:13-14 as mention in the Bible... billions maybe trillion are leading to destruction and only few will find the way of life...
You will say that God of the Bible is a cruel God... allowing billions of people to perish... you're wrong... God is just implementing his Word, He is the Judge - a righteous Judge but at the same time a merciful God... God's love sinner and at the same time he hate sins... kaya nga God sacrifice Himself.. died in the cross and after three days nabuhay na muli to redeem those who believe on Him... John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
its the truth, people who never know Jesus in their life will never see God's mercy. You think God of the Bible is unfair? No... its just that human heart is too corrupt for them to be able to accept God kaya kung ano ano iniimbento nilang Diyos para sa kanila.. god of love, god of sex, god of death, god of whatever... kahit walang Bible... God reveal Himself through nature and divine intervention its just that human heart is too corrupt to accept God
Romans 1:17-21
"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
take note: the Bible said "so that they are without excuse..."
Post by: tony on Oct 12, 2023 at 07:06 AM
Sir Tony, the root word of christianity is Christ. And the followers and believers of Christ are called christians. And Jesus is Christ.
Mukhang may clash of words tayo...
Pero dito kaya ito sa religion thread na ito magandang idiscuss?
in name only most of the time...
Post by: tony on Oct 12, 2023 at 07:18 AM
Quote
When it comes to God the Bible is the final authority. The Bible is the written Word of God. Without the Word of God my life and existence is meaningless. The Bible is the Word of God, without the Word of God - I am nothing. The Bible tells me about Jesus, tells me about God. I cant live without the Bile
and so we have figures like Jim Jones, David Coresh because they claim the bible told them so...and led many unwitting believers to their death and destruction...blind faith borne out of ignorance...
huwag na tayong lumayo, we have Apollo Quibuloy who is self appointed son of God, or Senior Aguila, the Santo Nino of the South, incidentally they both come from the south....truth is when people have become so ignorant as to accept blindly what their pastors or priests tell them, these things happen....
the Spaniards when they colonized us for 300+ years never wanted the local indios educated, they know that ignorant masses are easy to mold into sheep like things of believers....
Jose Rizal read the bible from cover to cover and find is an interesting book...
I find the bible a source of knowledge and inspiration, if only you can separate the grains from the schaff....
but if you treat the bible like it was some lawbook and for the letters written therein instead of skimming thru the spirit it contained, then all is useless just the like in the book of Ecclesiastes...
i can not be swayed by lawyer like arguments taking snippets or cherry picking the bible verses...
Post by: tony on Oct 12, 2023 at 07:21 AM
Quote
innermost of our soul = sinner
sorry but i do not subscribe to this crap.....
i believe that we were created perfect and inherently good.....
that we were just influenced by events and circumstances in our lives....
Post by: dpogs on Oct 12, 2023 at 07:52 AM
the Spaniards when they colonized us for 300+ years never wanted the local indios educated, they know that ignorant masses are easy to mold into sheep like things of believers....
you mean the Roman Catholics? they used and twist the Word of God to colonize people... it still existing today...
and so we have figures like Jim Jones, David Coresh because they claim the bible told them so...and led many unwitting believers to their death and destruction...blind faith borne out of ignorance...
huwag na tayong lumayo, we have Apollo Quibuloy who is self appointed son of God, or Senior Aguila, the Santo Nino of the South, incidentally they both come from the south....truth is when people have become so ignorant as to accept blindly what their pastors or priests tell them, these things happen....
the Spaniards when they colonized us for 300+ years never wanted the local indios educated, they know that ignorant masses are easy to mold into sheep like things of believers....
Jose Rizal read the bible from cover to cover and find is an interesting book...
I find the bible a source of knowledge and inspiration, if only you can separate the grains from the schaff....
but if you treat the bible like it was some lawbook and for the letters written therein instead of skimming thru the spirit it contained, then all is useless just the like in the book of Ecclesiastes...
i can not be swayed by lawyer like arguments taking snippets or cherry picking the bible verses...
its because Satan can twist the Word of God for his own benefits :) remember... this current ruler of this world is Satan... Satan used and twisted the Word of God to decieved Adam and Eve... Satan used God's command to create confusion to Adam and Eve.
Satan as a master of confusion ultimate goal is to spread doubt about the Word of God...
sorry but i do not subscribe to this crap.....
i believe that we were created perfect and inherently good.....
that we were just influenced by events and circumstances in our lives....
we need first to realize that we are sinner, to first accept that we are unworthy, sinful, and worthy of death before God... we need to realize that we are nothing before God... we need to realize that we are sinner and condemn to death... kasi kung hindi natin ito mareralize... hindi natin maiisip na we need a Saviour
we are insulting God if we think that we are good enough to go to heaven... we disrespect Gods sacrifice on the cross if we think that we dont need a saviour...
Post by: tony on Oct 12, 2023 at 10:03 AM
Quote
you mean the Roman Catholics? they used and twist the Word of God to colonize people... it still existing today.
yes, they cavorted with Hitler, Jesus Christ did not have an army of soldiers....and yet today those who call themselves Christians engage in a never ending war against another of the different Christian beliefs...
Protestants and Catholics killing each other in Ireland and Lebnon...
Suni's and Muslims as in Saudi versus Iran....
Quote
we need first to realize that we are sinner, to first accept that we are unworthy, sinful, and worthy of death before God... we need to realize that we are nothing before God... we need to realize that we are sinner and condemn to death... kasi kung hindi natin ito mareralize... hindi natin maiisip na we need a Saviour
again, human traits that are not Godly, we just put them into God's mouth to scare people and make them obey like sheep..
to err is human, but like God we can forgive because that is being Godly...
Quote
we are insulting God if we think that we are good enough to go to heaven... we disrespect Gods sacrifice on the cross if we think that we dont need a saviour...
God can be insulted??? your vision of God is of the human attribute...
Post by: jjjeronimo on Oct 12, 2023 at 10:10 AM
Even yung block voting na lang in favor of a clearly bad candidate dito sa atin is an evil in itself.
Post by: jas on Oct 12, 2023 at 01:45 PM
Post by: dpogs on Oct 13, 2023 at 08:48 AM
With regards to the Bible, I have to add that different people interpret it differently. Even within Christianity itself, different groups interpret, define and follow the Bible in dissimilar and even opposing ways. Ironically and unfortunately, I think this is also a cause for some to argue, fight and dispute.
even the Word of God can be twisted by Satan... God directly commanded adam and eve not to eat the fruit ... pero ano ang ginamit ng serpent to deceive adam and eve.. the Word of God mismo :) paano pa kaya ang Bible which is written Word of God...
malalaman mo naman ang fake christian religion
- any so called christian ekek na nagtuturo na ang salvation ay sa pamamagitan ng paggawa ng mabuti ay fake
- any professing christian na sinasamba mas binibigyan ng importansya ang mother kesa sa Son of God ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing gumawa kayo ng mabuti para kayo'y maligtas ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing magpabautismo kayo para maligtas ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing gumawa lang ako ng mabuti ay maliligtas na ako ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing pumatay kayo ng mga makasalanan ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing ang aming apostol ang magliligtas sa inyo ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing kailangan ko lang gumawa ng mabuti para maligtas ay fake
ang main topic ng Bible ay Jesus Christ, from alpha to omega, simula hanggant dulo - Jesus Christ
why would you tell your people na gawin mo ang isang bagay para maligtas eh sinabi na mismo ng Bible - Jesus the way, the truth, and the life... walang makakalapit sa Diyos Ama... maliban na lamang kung dadaan kay Jesus Christ...
people are desperate... people knows that at the end they will die... this is where false prophet false christianity will take advantage... bakit nila ituturo na si Jesus Christ ang tagapagligtas eh wala sila mapapakinabangan... kaya ang sasabihin nila... gumawa ka ng mabuti para ikay maligtas tapos yan na... madami nang mga listahan ano gagawin ng member para maligtas - mag abuloy, magbenta ng lupa tapos donate sa church, magsindi ng kandila araw araw (malaking business yan kandila - kaya pansin mo dami business sa labas ng simbahan), ibigay ang katawan para sa pagsanib ng ispiritu, pumatay ng mga hindi naniniwala sa paniniwala nila, sunugin ang mga heretics at kung ano ano pa...
bilang may pagmamalasakit - huwag kayong makikinig sa mga taong nagsasabi sila ang may tunay na paniniwala kung ang sasabihin nila sa iyo ay --- "GAWIN MO ang mga bagay na ito para ikaw ay maligtas"
but if that person always talk about Jesus Christ, how good and merciful is Jesus Christ, and in his/her life Jesus Christ is manifested, and acknowledge that he/she is sinner before God and can do nothing without Christ and talked about how Jesus Christ freed him/her from bondage of sins... then that person is true Christian based on his//her testimony about salvation and Jesus Christ..
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 14, 2023 at 02:53 PM
sorry but i do not subscribe to this crap.....So as a creation of God, do you consider yourself perfect and good?
i believe that we were created perfect and inherently good.....
that we were just influenced by events and circumstances in our lives....
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 14, 2023 at 02:58 PM
With regards to the Bible, I have to add that different people interpret it differently. Even within Christianity itself, different groups interpret, define and follow the Bible in dissimilar and even opposing ways. Ironically and unfortunately, I think this is also a cause for some to argue, fight and dispute.You are correct sir. Kaya one of the ways to check if the interpretations are s correct is:
1. Does the interpretation aligned or not in conflict with the other parts or verses in the Bible
2. Does the interpretation glorify God?
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Oct 14, 2023 at 02:59 PM
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Post by: jjjeronimo on Oct 15, 2023 at 02:02 PM
even the Word of God can be twisted by Satan... God directly commanded adam and eve not to eat the fruit ... pero ano ang ginamit ng serpent to deceive adam and eve.. the Word of God mismo :) paano pa kaya ang Bible which is written Word of God...
malalaman mo naman ang fake christian religion
- any so called christian ekek na nagtuturo na ang salvation ay sa pamamagitan ng paggawa ng mabuti ay fake
- any professing christian na sinasamba mas binibigyan ng importansya ang mother kesa sa Son of God ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing gumawa kayo ng mabuti para kayo'y maligtas ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing magpabautismo kayo para maligtas ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing gumawa lang ako ng mabuti ay maliligtas na ako ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing pumatay kayo ng mga makasalanan ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing ang aming apostol ang magliligtas sa inyo ay fake
- any professing christian na nagsasabing kailangan ko lang gumawa ng mabuti para maligtas ay fake
ang main topic ng Bible ay Jesus Christ, from alpha to omega, simula hanggant dulo - Jesus Christ
why would you tell your people na gawin mo ang isang bagay para maligtas eh sinabi na mismo ng Bible - Jesus the way, the truth, and the life... walang makakalapit sa Diyos Ama... maliban na lamang kung dadaan kay Jesus Christ...
people are desperate... people knows that at the end they will die... this is where false prophet false christianity will take advantage... bakit nila ituturo na si Jesus Christ ang tagapagligtas eh wala sila mapapakinabangan... kaya ang sasabihin nila... gumawa ka ng mabuti para ikay maligtas tapos yan na... madami nang mga listahan ano gagawin ng member para maligtas - mag abuloy, magbenta ng lupa tapos donate sa church, magsindi ng kandila araw araw (malaking business yan kandila - kaya pansin mo dami business sa labas ng simbahan), ibigay ang katawan para sa pagsanib ng ispiritu, pumatay ng mga hindi naniniwala sa paniniwala nila, sunugin ang mga heretics at kung ano ano pa...
bilang may pagmamalasakit - huwag kayong makikinig sa mga taong nagsasabi sila ang may tunay na paniniwala kung ang sasabihin nila sa iyo ay --- "GAWIN MO ang mga bagay na ito para ikaw ay maligtas"
but if that person always talk about Jesus Christ, how good and merciful is Jesus Christ, and in his/her life Jesus Christ is manifested, and acknowledge that he/she is sinner before God and can do nothing without Christ and talked about how Jesus Christ freed him/her from bondage of sins... then that person is true Christian based on his//her testimony about salvation and Jesus Christ..
No offense, I admire your faith in what you believe in, but itong ganitong mindset na "my belief is absolutely true while you are absolutely wrong" is exactly the reason why we do not have peace on Earth.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 16, 2023 at 10:17 AM
No offense, I admire your faith in what you believe in, but itong ganitong mindset na "my belief is absolutely true while you are absolutely wrong" is exactly the reason why we do not have peace on Earth.
its what the Bible says... the Bible says salvation is only through Jesus Christ... the reason why we dont have peace is basically because of that... people dont believe that Jesus alone can save ... and people with ulterior motive will take advantage of this...
bakit mo sasabihin sa isang tao na para maligtas ay kailangan nyang gumawa ng mabuti? (take note... ang mabuti sa atin ay maaring masama sa iba)
para sa mga extremist... to kill heretics considered doing goods... to kill those who oppose in their belief considered doing good... dyan pumapasok bakit walang peace sa ating bansa... Satan is very successfull deceiving people, crating chaos, creating war, conflicts... to sway people for what is the Bible teaching - Jesus alone can save....
the cause of fall = pride
satan rebel against God becuase of pride - Lucifer assumes that he is better than God
adam and eve decieve by Satan because of pride - i can be God if eat that fruit... i will obtain the knowledge and be like God
human fall because of pride - we cant accept that we are inherently sinner, we think that we are good enough to approach God, we think that by doing certain things we dont need God.. i can obtain nirvana why believe in Christ... kung ako hindi magnanakaw siguro patatawarin ako ng Diyos = pride... di naman ako kasingsama ng mga rapist/murder bakit ako parurusahan ng Diyos = pride
human pride = hindi natin matanggap tanggap na we are in fault of everything
alam naman natin... maraming false prophets... maraming false religion sa ngayon... hanap lang pera, power, lust, etc... i give you parameter paano masasabing bulaan ang isang taong nagsasabing christianity based on the Bible alone... ang mga bulaang propeta/religion ay mga taong nagsasabing christian sila pero Jesus Christ is not the center of their salvation.
the main reason why there is no peace on Earth - human mind and soul is corrupted since adam and eve fall... Satan is the prince of this world... the current ruler of this world... Satan create chaos/war/hatred to deter human from the truth - Jesus alone is the Salvation
pag merong kumatok sa inyong pintuan at ang ituturo sa inyo ay kailangan nyong umanib sa amin para kayo'y maligtas - dont entertain them bakit ka nila irerequire na sumanib sa kanila para maligtas?
pag merong kumatok sa inyong pintuan at ang ituturo sa inyo ay kailangan mong magbigay ng pera/offerring para kayoý maligtas - dont entertain them bakit invovle ang pera?
when it comes to Christianity the Bible is the absolute truth - walang ibang itinuturo ang Bibliya kungdi God's perfect plan for salvation - Jesus Christ alone
Post by: jjjeronimo on Oct 16, 2023 at 10:26 AM
I have no intentions of going into a religious debate here. Just laying down the facts. Million na ang namatay dahil diyan sa conflict ng paniniwala.
Post by: Own7 on Oct 16, 2023 at 10:38 AM
its what the Bible says... the Bible says salvation is only through Jesus Christ... the reason why we dont have peace is basically because of that... people dont believe that Jesus alone can save ... and people with ulterior motive will take advantage of this...
bakit mo sasabihin sa isang tao na para maligtas ay kailangan nyang gumawa ng mabuti? (take note... ang mabuti sa atin ay maaring masama sa iba)
para sa mga extremist... to kill heretics considered doing goods... to kill those who oppose in their belief considered doing good... dyan pumapasok bakit walang peace sa ating bansa... Satan is very successfull deceiving people, crating chaos, creating war, conflicts... to sway people for what is the Bible teaching - Jesus alone can save....
the cause of fall = pride
satan rebel against God becuase of pride - Lucifer assumes that he is better than God
adam and eve decieve by Satan because of pride - i can be God if eat that fruit... i will obtain the knowledge and be like God
human fall because of pride - we cant accept that we are inherently sinner, we think that we are good enough to approach God, we think that by doing certain things we dont need God.. i can obtain nirvana why believe in Christ... kung ako hindi magnanakaw siguro patatawarin ako ng Diyos = pride... di naman ako kasingsama ng mga rapist/murder bakit ako parurusahan ng Diyos = pride
human pride = hindi natin matanggap tanggap na we are in fault of everything
alam naman natin... maraming false prophets... maraming false religion sa ngayon... hanap lang pera, power, lust, etc... i give you parameter paano masasabing bulaan ang isang taong nagsasabing christianity based on the Bible alone... ang mga bulaang propeta/religion ay mga taong nagsasabing christian sila pero Jesus Christ is not the center of their salvation.
the main reason why there is no peace on Earth - human mind and soul is corrupted since adam and eve fall... Satan is the prince of this world... the current ruler of this world... Satan create chaos/war/hatred to deter human from the truth - Jesus alone is the Salvation
pag merong kumatok sa inyong pintuan at ang ituturo sa inyo ay kailangan nyong umanib sa amin para kayo'y maligtas - dont entertain them bakit ka nila irerequire na sumanib sa kanila para maligtas?
pag merong kumatok sa inyong pintuan at ang ituturo sa inyo ay kailangan mong magbigay ng pera/offerring para kayoý maligtas - dont entertain them bakit invovle ang pera?
when it comes to Christianity the Bible is the absolute truth - walang ibang itinuturo ang Bibliya kungdi God's perfect plan for salvation - Jesus Christ alone
Why use “extremist” to assert your point regarding “what’s right or wrong?”
They dont believe in the bible, in fact, if you ask them the bible itself is
What’s causing the chaos since it’s their main belief it was written by mortals
Instead of god. To them kuran is the only book written by god.
I pointed it out because if you talk about “right and wrong”, then use those
Who subricribe to the bible as basis. meaning, christians point of view. It is
Only then each of us can have a clearer view of right and wrong.
Fyi, parang sinabi mo na hindi baleng hindi ka mabuting tao basta acknowledge/
Believe/accept mo na christ is the savior? And you’re good to go?
Post by: dpogs on Oct 16, 2023 at 11:33 AM
Why use “extremist” to assert your point regarding “what’s right or wrong?”
They dont believe in the bible, in fact, if you ask them the bible itself is
What’s causing the chaos since it’s their main belief it was written by mortals
Instead of god. To them kuran is the only book written by god.
exteremist doest only belong to other religion... merong mga so called christian sec that so extrem na outside of their religion they are willing to kill in exchange of their soul salvation.
pwede din nating masabi na... any religion that will require you to do "good" to obtain salvation ay malaking warning na para masabing isa sila sa mga nacreate na religion to create chaos and confusion sa mundo... goind good is subjective depende sa tradition at environment na kinabibilangan...
Quote
I pointed it out because if you talk about “right and wrong”, then use those
Who subricribe to the bible as basis. meaning, christians point of view. It is
Only then each of us can have a clearer view of right and wrong.
Fyi, parang sinabi mo na hindi baleng hindi ka mabuting tao basta acknowledge/
Believe/accept mo na christ is the savior? And you’re good to go?
When it comes to salvation you dont have anything to do... on the premise that we are all sinners... regardless how good we are in the eyes of human... in the eyes of God we are all sinners...
It is written in the Word of God that no one cometh to the Father except thru Jesus Christ
to answer your question... YES... in the first place wala naman talanga mabuting tao sa mata ng Diyos ... and if you have (take note) true repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior the Sprit of God will manifest in your life as you progress in your life with Jesus Christ... as you grow in faith you also grow in "works" meaning GOd's righteousness will naturally manifest in your life and sorroundings.
Remember the two criminals besides Jesus Christ crucification... the one said... "If thou be Christ, save thyself and us." <his only concern is physical salvation - maalis sila sa pagkakapako> but the other one said...
"Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss." <this is the acknowledgement that truly they deserved great punishment. he acknowledge that he is sinner> and then the next sentence of the other criminal is
"Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." <this he acknowledge that he needed a saviour. and believe that Jesus will brim him to Kingdom/heaven. this is spiritual salvation his concern is his soul>
please take note what Jesus said to the criminal "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." --- Jesus never mentioned are you good enough? Jesus never ask the criminal - what good things did you do here on earth? or Jesus never said "before you go with me to kingdom you need to follow ten commandement"... when Jesus saw the mans'repentance and belief on Him from that moment... Jesus forgave and assured him of kingdom :) :) that is what we called assurance of salvation... once God forgave you of your sins God will never remember your sins anymore past, present and future... because God never see you as sinner anyomre... what God saw in your heart is Jesus Christ... kaya hindi totoo iyong sinasabi ng iba na kami lang ang makakapunta sa langit kasi kami lang ang mabuti, di kami nagnanakaw, wala kamig galit sa kapwa kaya kami lang aakyat sa langit... the Bible ssaid only the "righteous" can go to heaven... pero sino itong mga righteous - those who acknoledge that they are sinner before God and thus need a savior and then accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Personal savior only then can God change their status from sinner to righteous..
that is the standard set by God... Jesus Christ alone... in God's standrd you only need to aknowledge youré a sinner and indeed need a savior and then believe and have faith that Jesus died on the cross raise from the dead after three days and now is in heaven as your Lord and persoanl savioir...
Post by: tony on Oct 18, 2023 at 07:18 AM
Quote
that is the standard set by God... Jesus Christ alone... in God's standrd you only need to aknowledge youré a sinner and indeed need a savior and then believe and have faith that Jesus died on the cross raise from the dead after three days and now is in heaven as your Lord and persoanl savioir...
remember there are billions of people belonging to other religions, Buddists, Islamist, Cunfucionists, etc. etc.... so they do not matter at all???
Post by: deuce on Oct 18, 2023 at 11:32 AM
Post by: noob on Oct 18, 2023 at 11:53 AM
“So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell?”
Post by: dpogs on Oct 18, 2023 at 02:29 PM
way beyond humanity - makikita natin how Satan create chaos and human's heart corruptred heart disobedient to God... God requires blood sacrifice for our sins atonement... the ultimate sacrifice sinless, pure, perfect blood = Jesus Christ blood... by faith Abel sacrifice lamb - symbolized blood sacrifice = God's perfect plan of salvation = JEsus Christ but Cain choose other sacrifice = human effort (dito pa lang meron nang hindi pagkakasundo :) ) na nagresulta sa pagkamatay ni Abel ...
God promise adam and eve that there will be first born who will crash Satan and adam and eve believe God kaya sinuutan ng Diyos si adam and eve ng sheepskin ... (remember after adam and eve fall they clothed themselves leaves and twigs - this is humans effort to obtain salvation)... kaya ng sinuutan ng Diyos ng sheep skin is adam and eve theres blood sacrifice... by faith they follow God...
throughout old testament ... the topic of salvation is Jesus Christ... blood sacrifice... altar of sacrifice... lamb sacrifice (lamb - symbolize pure, sinless)... to be able to escapre the angel of death (killing all firstborn) you need to put lamb blood and the angel of death will pass over you...
And what about all the people on earth who lived and died before the birth of Christ? It was impossible for them to embrace Christ as Savior, simply because He was not born yet. So did they all go to hell?
remember there are billions of people belonging to other religions, Buddists, Islamist, Cunfucionists, etc. etc.... so they do not matter at all???
Romans 1:17-23
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 18, 2023 at 02:31 PM
pink floyd:
“So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell?”
We have the Bible as the guide... mas lalo na ngayon... kung saan ang information ay readily available... wala talaga excuse ang tao.
Post by: deuce on Oct 18, 2023 at 03:10 PM
Post by: TinkerTailor on Oct 18, 2023 at 04:58 PM
Here's my comment re the same matter in a friends FB post about religion:
Religion is oftentimes just conceit sir.... What else can you call the belief that others are damned while you are saved- and this because those deemed to be destined for eternal suffering happen to have been born to a people who have as many gods as there are creatures or born to a race who consider the forces of nature worthy of worship.
No logic at all to the exclusive ideas of salvation sir. Worse, it breeds nothing but strife.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 18, 2023 at 05:29 PM
dpogs, you did not answer my question. If salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ, what about all the people on earth who lived and died before the birth of Christ? It was impossible for them to embrace Christ as Savior, simply because He was not born yet. So were they all consigned to hell?
Roman 1:17-23 - salvation still the same its thru Jesus Christ by faith... God revealed His perfect plan of salvation to Adam and Eve - and it is evident kung paano nila itinuro ito kay Abel and Cain... from them to please God there must be blood sacrifice (symbolize the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ)... and by faith Abel belived and nagsacrifice sya ng firstbone of his flock (blood sacrifice) and offer it to God... and those who didnt believe and have been decieved by Satan... the Bible said that God revelation is evident in His creation... "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: "
but because of human's heart was corrupted God's revelation to them about salvation they exchange the revalation to image of animals, creeping things, etc .. and if through God's revelation thay realized that they are sinners and indeed need of saviour and believe that God will save them (na walang kapalit na gagawin)... our heart is just too corrupted that God's reveliation though creation ay hindi natin maintindihan though deep in our heart my longing pero our mind twisted it kaya nagkakaroon ng mga santo, anito, or other forms of gods.... well sa tulong na din ni Satan kaya nagkaroon ng madaming religion :)
Post by: deuce on Oct 19, 2023 at 08:04 AM
This is my beef in your belief: that it reserves salvation to a very narrow segment of humanity, and excludes millions who, through no fault of their own, never even heard of christianity, especially before the birth of Christ and the publication of the bible.
Post by: dpogs on Oct 20, 2023 at 08:28 AM
God's judgement and mecy have been revealed to all human (both righteous and unrighteous)... but then they turn God's revelation to their own interpratation
"And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
for example sumerian - they believed in many kins of gods... their belief either have been passed thru generation back to adam and eve but then got corrupted along the way... or they recieved God's revelation but because of Satan's deceivesenes or human's heart corrupt then they turnéd God's image to other kind of gods... ang isang tao na ipinangaak ng walang religion or walang nakamulatang belief... will eventually realize just by observing his/her environment that there is a greater power behind all of these things... deep in their heart God is knocking... revealing His wrath and mercy... and its up to them whether by faith they will believed that that greater power existing will save them...
we dont have any excuse.. lalo na sa atin dito sa Pilipinas
now that you've heard the Gospel... God's judgement and mercy... and God's pefect salvation... ngayon at narinig mo nat nabasa... ano ang iyong magiging hakbang?
will you humble yourself before God and accept that you're a sinner and not worthy of God's mercy? Will you have faith that Jesus alone can atone your sins and forgive all of your sins?
Post by: tony on Oct 21, 2023 at 09:28 AM
to me a true Christian will never tolerate corruption, stealing and kiliing....
Post by: jjjeronimo on Oct 21, 2023 at 09:43 AM
Religion is not the problem per se. Rather, it is the intolerance of the (so-called) religious...
(https://i.imgur.com/Ln5HODk.jpg)